Mort: I’m in charge

[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

 

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.

 

 

 

au contraire, i understand everything here, including the excruciatingly difficult concept to grasp that a players role is different to a directors, are you having a laugh?

 

i just think that freddy shepherd is a stupid cunt that we're better off without, and you dont, that's the only real difference between me and you, could you consider stopping thinking that everyone that doesnt agree with you either doesn't know the facts, or is just too daft to know what they mean?

 

i'd love to know what my agenda is, by the way, because freddy's gone and the majority of people think he was a twat anyway, i'd have to have a screw loose to be devoting my spare time to wrecking his 'good name'

[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.

 

 

 

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

 

It is really quite shocking that you fail to grasp something that is so very, very easy to understand.

[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.

 

 

 

au contraire, i understand everything here, including the excruciatingly difficult concept to grasp that a players role is different to a directors, are you having a laugh?

 

i just think that freddy shepherd is a stupid cunt that we're better off without, and you dont, that's the only real difference between me and you, could you consider stopping thinking that everyone that doesnt agree with you either doesn't know the facts, or is just too daft to know what they mean?

 

i'd love to know what my agenda is, by the way, because freddy's gone and the majority of people think he was a twat anyway, i'd have to have a screw loose to be devoting my spare time to wrecking his 'good name'

 

haha. Now you are looking a bit daft. If you think Shepherd is a dick and we are better off without him, then 87 clubs watched us enviously playing in europe regularly, and brought top class players to the club for a canny few years. As usual, I don't expect you to get a perspective, rather than chase a silly agenda. Also, if you think we were better off without the ex board, you wouldn't last 5 minutes supporting a club with a real shite board.

 

As usual, ALL of your post concerns the personality, which affects your judgement, but I suspect you aren't capable of seeing this. I don't expect you to take up factual issues rather than personalities or you would have done so by now.

 

I'm not having a laugh ref my remarks about the difference in roles between players and directors, I think you - and many others - don't understand this. You clearly don't seem to understand when the job a director does becomes that of the player.

 

BTW, I'll only think we are better off without the ex board, when someone comes along and does better. The fact that you can't grasp this fairly basic concept says everything.

 

 

[fredbob]

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.

 

This is exactly what i mean. Do you not see the fundamental flaw with the whole "it could of been worse" attitutde.??!? This is exactly the attitude that you and all the older posters on the forum who support the old board have. How desperate for success can you actually be when you have this "it could of been worse" attitude? Until you achieve success you cant be happy, and even if you are successful you never stop. Its this intrinsic drive to succeed which all he people at the top of there respective fields have.

 

It comes down to what you think the board are accountable for, and if you think that the boards responsiblity ends and the financial backing of there appointed manager , then in my opinion you are being naive. The boards job is to direct the club and business to success and when sucess or growth isnt achieved irrespective of the valid decisions that were made by the board, NO matter how justifiable or correct they were, the BOARD and the CHAIRMAN will always always be accountable. ESPECIALLY THE CHAIRMAN. This is all true unless there is exceptional circumstances and unforseeable events. None of which i saw.

 

Now despite my posts i happen to think that the old board achieved a hell of a lot, and i genuinely understand that they brought this club back from the brink. Which as a nufc fan i genuinely appreciate.

 

However, from a compltely ruthless point of view (at the risk of sounding ungrateful) i think the board failed to achieve what they could, and maybe should of achieved.

 

Would just like to make things clear. Im not one of those people who were against the board. I'm not against the old board. I dont have any agenda against them and i supported every single one of there decisoions except Souness I even understood there decision to appoint Roeder.

 

What my posts are aimed to do are not to fight for side or another or sling mud at the oldboard but to argue my personal opinion on the achivments of the the old board with hindsight.

 

In my opinion mistakes are acceptable but when they affect the business they arent. If you think that mistakes which set businesses back 10 years are acceptable in any circumstance then you arent living in reality. Becasue thats defnintely not how it works in real life.

 

I think every argument i have made is objective.

[thomas]

Is this just a really bad angle for the photo or is his head finally catching up with his body in terms of sheer girth?

http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/725/010278340935800sb2.jpg

[Guest bobblyrage]

      To cut in on this debate, and I havent read all 19pages, I'd say most people would agree that the club was due a change at boardroom level, for a number of reasons.

 

      Since 2004 and the Robson sacking the Premiership has changed massively, on the pitch a host of teams (Villa, Man City, Blackburn, Pompey etc) have dumped the poor backward managers and got in new forward thinknig people, can you imagine O'Leary or Souness getting another big job? In the meantime we went backwards with Souness and Roeder, people saw this and ultimately FS had lost the confidence and backing of too many of the supporters, and we'd spent too much money for not enough/any improvement. When the confidence is gone I dont think it can be won back, a lot of people believe everything pre-2004 was despite FS and  I think thats says a lot, he was dead in the water.

 

      Off the pitch with so many foriegn takeovers and promises of cash injections elsewhere we were in danger of just being left behind, as a football team competing for players and as company competing for revenue and customers.  We needed some fresh blood. Mort  has came in and hes been more dynamical already than FS was in he last few seasons (contacting the various fans groups, cheap season tickets for kids). I think the combination of Ashleys financial muscle and contacts in sports business and Mort, a younger more forward thinknig chairman is better for the club.

 

    I think Sir John Hall saw these too and thats why he decided to pull the plug on FS. All good/bad (delete as apropriate!)  things come to an end. As others have said in football you are entitled to nothing, you have to earn your success and earn your fans, and if you think you're entitled to stay in the premiership as you've been there since 1993 and into the champions league as you've been in it before you'll get a nasty surprise. Simiarily if you think you can remain in charge because you helped get the club up in 1993 and then onto the champions league then you also get a shock.

 

 

Fair comment. Nobody is saying a change may not have been good for the club, only that what we have heard and saw so far isn't so encouraging. The new board DO have to match the old board first, before they can claim to have any success. Why do you - or others - not acknowledge this. It IS possible that they may not match them you know.

 

 

 

 

 

Hi, sorry to drag back to this (didnt realise how fast this thread was going!), but I'd like to bring up two points on this, firstly, what isnt encouraging? I dont mean this arguementatively, just wondering. As against;

 

On the pitch; We have spent money on players, and also on their wages (IMO an often forgotten factor  in bringing in players, its not merely about upfront fees) in the only open transfer window we've had. We appear to be taking an interest in our long term squad already. So far all regarding January is just press chatter and judge on deeds not words!  (mind you I for one wont be too worried if we dont spend in january but I think thats a discussion for another thread!)

Off; we are indisputeably more active, the club are letting in kids for peanuts, talking of starting our own 'football in the community', reaching out to fans groups etc. Perhaps I'vemissed things but I cant see what the new lot could have done differently or better? (excepting spending wild amounts)

 

 

Secondly - I dont claim the new board are any sort of success, its far too early to make any judgement though, EITHER way! Of course we could be far worse for us than sticking with FS would have been. Looking at the facts,  we've dumped a man who was an experienced chairman for a rookie, with a potentially reckless and a definite maverick owner behind him. I agree with you entirely we might get a terrible time. But I beleive Ashley and Mort CAN take us forward, and we're on the ride now (like it or not) we may aswell hope for the best and enjoy it as much as we can!

[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

 

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.

 

 

 

au contraire, i understand everything here, including the excruciatingly difficult concept to grasp that a players role is different to a directors, are you having a laugh?

 

i just think that freddy shepherd is a stupid c*** that we're better off without, and you dont, that's the only real difference between me and you, could you consider stopping thinking that everyone that doesnt agree with you either doesn't know the facts, or is just too daft to know what they mean?

 

i'd love to know what my agenda is, by the way, because freddy's gone and the majority of people think he was a t*** anyway, i'd have to have a screw loose to be devoting my spare time to wrecking his 'good name'

 

haha. Now you are looking a bit daft. If you think Shepherd is a dick and we are better off without him, then 87 clubs watched us enviously playing in europe regularly, and brought top class players to the club for a canny few years. As usual, I don't expect you to get a perspective, rather than chase a silly agenda. Also, if you think we were better off without the ex board, you wouldn't last 5 minutes supporting a club with a real s**** board.

 

As usual, ALL of your post concerns the personality, which affects your judgement, but I suspect you aren't capable of seeing this. I don't expect you to take up factual issues rather than personalities or you would have done so by now.

 

I'm not having a laugh ref my remarks about the difference in roles between players and directors, I think you - and many others - don't understand this. You clearly don't seem to understand when the job a director does becomes that of the player.

 

BTW, I'll only think we are better off without the ex board, when someone comes along and does better. The fact that you can't grasp this fairly basic concept says everything.

 

 

 

i can grasp the concept of your opinion, its not hard, i just disagree, they did a good job initially and then did a really shit job and took us backwards, therefore i think we're better off without them, its ok though, i can disagree with you and still feel ok about it because its not disturbing to me that someone has different opinion to mine, i have no agenda

[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.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

au contraire, i understand everything here, including the excruciatingly difficult concept to grasp that a players role is different to a directors, are you having a laugh?

 

i just think that freddy shepherd is a stupid c*** that we're better off without, and you dont, that's the only real difference between me and you, could you consider stopping thinking that everyone that doesnt agree with you either doesn't know the facts, or is just too daft to know what they mean?

 

i'd love to know what my agenda is, by the way, because freddy's gone and the majority of people think he was a t*** anyway, i'd have to have a screw loose to be devoting my spare time to wrecking his 'good name'

 

haha. Now you are looking a bit daft. If you think Shepherd is a dick and we are better off without him, then 87 clubs watched us enviously playing in europe regularly, and brought top class players to the club for a canny few years. As usual, I don't expect you to get a perspective, rather than chase a silly agenda. Also, if you think we were better off without the ex board, you wouldn't last 5 minutes supporting a club with a real s**** board.

 

As usual, ALL of your post concerns the personality, which affects your judgement, but I suspect you aren't capable of seeing this. I don't expect you to take up factual issues rather than personalities or you would have done so by now.

 

I'm not having a laugh ref my remarks about the difference in roles between players and directors, I think you - and many others - don't understand this. You clearly don't seem to understand when the job a director does becomes that of the player.

 

BTW, I'll only think we are better off without the ex board, when someone comes along and does better. The fact that you can't grasp this fairly basic concept says everything.

 

 

 

i can grasp the concept of your opinion, its not hard, i just disagree, they did a good job initially and then did a really shit job and took us backwards, therefore i think we're better off without them, its ok though, i can disagree with you and still feel ok about it because its not disturbing to me that someone has different opinion to mine, i have no agenda

 

You don't grasp the concept at all. From your posts it looks like you're posting on an entirely different subject.

 

There's no doubt at all from your comments that your gripe with the previous board is nothing to do with how they ran the football club but is more to do with Fred being fat.  mackems.gif  I don't think you really have a clue what the previous board achieved for the football club. If you do know, then you have no grasp of the history of the club, given how you dismiss it so easily. Perhaps you think we have a divine right to win a trophy? I don't know, so you tell me. 

 

The reality is there is only so much any board can do. If they put in place everything it takes for the manager to build a team/squad capable of 3 top 5 finishes in a row, even though the league is the true measure I'd suggest that team is capable of winning a cup competition at least. If they fail to do so it can be for any number of reasons but it is not down to the incompetence of the board. This is really, really, really easy to understand once you can see past Fred being fat, a c**t or whatever other idiotic and childish label you want to pin on  him.

 

What happened was they made one terrible managerial appointment. I'm not underestimating how serious this was because it's the most important decision they have to make and they got it badly wrong with Souness. They then failed to put it right with Roeder, although he wasn't a disaster like Souness.  Perhaps they got it right with Allardyce? If so, what will you and your type moan about then, I wonder?

[NE5]

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.

 

This is exactly what i mean. Do you not see the fundamental flaw with the whole "it could of been worse" attitutde.??!? This is exactly the attitude that you and all the older posters on the forum who support the old board have. How desperate for success can you actually be when you have this "it could of been worse" attitude? Until you achieve success you cant be happy, and even if you are successful you never stop. Its this intrinsic drive to succeed which all he people at the top of there respective fields have.

 

It comes down to what you think the board are accountable for, and if you think that the boards responsiblity ends and the financial backing of there appointed manager , then in my opinion you are being naive. The boards job is to direct the club and business to success and when sucess or growth isnt achieved irrespective of the valid decisions that were made by the board, NO matter how justifiable or correct they were, the BOARD and the CHAIRMAN will always always be accountable. ESPECIALLY THE CHAIRMAN. This is all true unless there is exceptional circumstances and unforseeable events. None of which i saw.

 

Now despite my posts i happen to think that the old board achieved a hell of a lot, and i genuinely understand that they brought this club back from the brink. Which as a nufc fan i genuinely appreciate.

 

However, from a compltely ruthless point of view (at the risk of sounding ungrateful) i think the board failed to achieve what they could, and maybe should of achieved.

 

Would just like to make things clear. Im not one of those people who were against the board. I'm not against the old board. I dont have any agenda against them and i supported every single one of there decisoions except Souness I even understood there decision to appoint Roeder.

 

What my posts are aimed to do are not to fight for side or another or sling mud at the oldboard but to argue my personal opinion on the achivments of the the old board with hindsight.

 

In my opinion mistakes are acceptable but when they affect the business they arent. If you think that mistakes which set businesses back 10 years are acceptable in any circumstance then you arent living in reality. Becasue thats defnintely not how it works in real life.

 

I think every argument i have made is objective.

 

Well, if you want to spout the "business" angle, tell me which "business" wouldn't be happy to be the 5th most marketable product in the country over a period of a decade, or more ?

 

Either do that, or accept that football is a different sort of "business".

 

THAT is reality.

 

I really wanted to say your post is a load of codswallop, but I'll give you the chance to respond to this, although I think I have an idea what it may be.

 

 

[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

 

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.

 

 

 

au contraire, i understand everything here, including the excruciatingly difficult concept to grasp that a players role is different to a directors, are you having a laugh?

 

i just think that freddy shepherd is a stupid c*** that we're better off without, and you dont, that's the only real difference between me and you, could you consider stopping thinking that everyone that doesnt agree with you either doesn't know the facts, or is just too daft to know what they mean?

 

i'd love to know what my agenda is, by the way, because freddy's gone and the majority of people think he was a t*** anyway, i'd have to have a screw loose to be devoting my spare time to wrecking his 'good name'

 

haha. Now you are looking a bit daft. If you think Shepherd is a dick and we are better off without him, then 87 clubs watched us enviously playing in europe regularly, and brought top class players to the club for a canny few years. As usual, I don't expect you to get a perspective, rather than chase a silly agenda. Also, if you think we were better off without the ex board, you wouldn't last 5 minutes supporting a club with a real s**** board.

 

As usual, ALL of your post concerns the personality, which affects your judgement, but I suspect you aren't capable of seeing this. I don't expect you to take up factual issues rather than personalities or you would have done so by now.

 

I'm not having a laugh ref my remarks about the difference in roles between players and directors, I think you - and many others - don't understand this. You clearly don't seem to understand when the job a director does becomes that of the player.

 

BTW, I'll only think we are better off without the ex board, when someone comes along and does better. The fact that you can't grasp this fairly basic concept says everything.

 

 

 

i can grasp the concept of your opinion, its not hard, i just disagree, they did a good job initially and then did a really s*** job and took us backwards, therefore i think we're better off without them, its ok though, i can disagree with you and still feel ok about it because its not disturbing to me that someone has different opinion to mine, i have no agenda

 

You don't grasp the concept at all. From your posts it looks like you're posting on an entirely different subject.

 

There's no doubt at all from your comments that your gripe with the previous board is nothing to do with how they ran the football club but is more to do with Fred being fat.  mackems.gif  I don't think you really have a clue what the previous board achieved for the football club. If you do know, then you have no grasp of the history of the club, given how you dismiss it so easily. Perhaps you think we have a divine right to win a trophy? I don't know, so you tell me. 

 

The reality is there is only so much any board can do. If they put in place everything it takes for the manager to build a team/squad capable of 3 top 5 finishes in a row, even though the league is the true measure I'd suggest that team is capable of winning a cup competition at least. If they fail to do so it can be for any number of reasons but it is not down to the incompetence of the board. This is really, really, really easy to understand once you can see past Fred being fat, a c**t or whatever other idiotic and childish label you want to pin on  him.

 

What happened was they made one terrible managerial appointment. I'm not underestimating how serious this was because it's the most important decision they have to make and they got it badly wrong with Souness. They then failed to put it right with Roeder, although he wasn't a disaster like Souness.  Perhaps they got it right with Allardyce? If so, what will you and your type moan about then, I wonder?

 

again, i UNDERSTAND all of that, i just have a difference of opinion, but if it suits you, you're right, i'm wrong, sick of this now anyway

 

and by the way i'm not a moaner, i am definitely a glass half full supporter, fred's a cunt

[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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

My God. I dont know whether to laugh or cry.

 

So lets get this straight. Because Shepherd was a director on the board, and a stakeholder in the club, you attribute all the success under Sir John Hall to Shepherd as well?

 

Theres just no response to that, because its so idiotic and fundamentally flawed that its quite obvious that youre not interested in anything other than twisting everything possible in the favour of Shepherd.

 

Lets be clear here. Shepherd was on the board from 92 to 96. John Hall was chairman at the time, the man who made the big decisions and lead the overall direction of the club. Whether the directors or board members vote on issues is irrelevent, its still the chairman who is the overall manager of the club. From 97 onwards, Shepherd assumed this role, and its from here that we started going backwards. Whether the rest of the board was still the same or not is also irrelevent, since the previous senior manager had left.

 

But hey, lets ignore the clear and dinstinct differences in roles and the organisational structure of the management in order to back Shepherd.

[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.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

au contraire, i understand everything here, including the excruciatingly difficult concept to grasp that a players role is different to a directors, are you having a laugh?

 

i just think that freddy shepherd is a stupid c*** that we're better off without, and you dont, that's the only real difference between me and you, could you consider stopping thinking that everyone that doesnt agree with you either doesn't know the facts, or is just too daft to know what they mean?

 

i'd love to know what my agenda is, by the way, because freddy's gone and the majority of people think he was a t*** anyway, i'd have to have a screw loose to be devoting my spare time to wrecking his 'good name'

 

haha. Now you are looking a bit daft. If you think Shepherd is a dick and we are better off without him, then 87 clubs watched us enviously playing in europe regularly, and brought top class players to the club for a canny few years. As usual, I don't expect you to get a perspective, rather than chase a silly agenda. Also, if you think we were better off without the ex board, you wouldn't last 5 minutes supporting a club with a real s**** board.

 

As usual, ALL of your post concerns the personality, which affects your judgement, but I suspect you aren't capable of seeing this. I don't expect you to take up factual issues rather than personalities or you would have done so by now.

 

I'm not having a laugh ref my remarks about the difference in roles between players and directors, I think you - and many others - don't understand this. You clearly don't seem to understand when the job a director does becomes that of the player.

 

BTW, I'll only think we are better off without the ex board, when someone comes along and does better. The fact that you can't grasp this fairly basic concept says everything.

 

 

 

i can grasp the concept of your opinion, its not hard, i just disagree, they did a good job initially and then did a really s*** job and took us backwards, therefore i think we're better off without them, its ok though, i can disagree with you and still feel ok about it because its not disturbing to me that someone has different opinion to mine, i have no agenda

 

You don't grasp the concept at all. From your posts it looks like you're posting on an entirely different subject.

 

There's no doubt at all from your comments that your gripe with the previous board is nothing to do with how they ran the football club but is more to do with Fred being fat.  mackems.gif  I don't think you really have a clue what the previous board achieved for the football club. If you do know, then you have no grasp of the history of the club, given how you dismiss it so easily. Perhaps you think we have a divine right to win a trophy? I don't know, so you tell me. 

 

The reality is there is only so much any board can do. If they put in place everything it takes for the manager to build a team/squad capable of 3 top 5 finishes in a row, even though the league is the true measure I'd suggest that team is capable of winning a cup competition at least. If they fail to do so it can be for any number of reasons but it is not down to the incompetence of the board. This is really, really, really easy to understand once you can see past Fred being fat, a c**t or whatever other idiotic and childish label you want to pin on  him.

 

What happened was they made one terrible managerial appointment. I'm not underestimating how serious this was because it's the most important decision they have to make and they got it badly wrong with Souness. They then failed to put it right with Roeder, although he wasn't a disaster like Souness.  Perhaps they got it right with Allardyce? If so, what will you and your type moan about then, I wonder?

 

again, i UNDERSTAND all of that, i just have a difference of opinion, but if it suits you, you're right, i'm wrong, sick of this now anyway

 

and by the way i'm not a moaner, i am definitely a glass half full supporter, fred's a cunt

 

 

I don't care whether you think I'm right or wrong, I'm just pointing out that your criticism of the previous board isn't based on how they performed in their relative roles, rather it's based on Fred being overweight.

 

[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

 

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.

 

 

 

au contraire, i understand everything here, including the excruciatingly difficult concept to grasp that a players role is different to a directors, are you having a laugh?

 

i just think that freddy shepherd is a stupid c*** that we're better off without, and you dont, that's the only real difference between me and you, could you consider stopping thinking that everyone that doesnt agree with you either doesn't know the facts, or is just too daft to know what they mean?

 

i'd love to know what my agenda is, by the way, because freddy's gone and the majority of people think he was a t*** anyway, i'd have to have a screw loose to be devoting my spare time to wrecking his 'good name'

 

haha. Now you are looking a bit daft. If you think Shepherd is a dick and we are better off without him, then 87 clubs watched us enviously playing in europe regularly, and brought top class players to the club for a canny few years. As usual, I don't expect you to get a perspective, rather than chase a silly agenda. Also, if you think we were better off without the ex board, you wouldn't last 5 minutes supporting a club with a real s**** board.

 

As usual, ALL of your post concerns the personality, which affects your judgement, but I suspect you aren't capable of seeing this. I don't expect you to take up factual issues rather than personalities or you would have done so by now.

 

I'm not having a laugh ref my remarks about the difference in roles between players and directors, I think you - and many others - don't understand this. You clearly don't seem to understand when the job a director does becomes that of the player.

 

BTW, I'll only think we are better off without the ex board, when someone comes along and does better. The fact that you can't grasp this fairly basic concept says everything.

 

 

 

i can grasp the concept of your opinion, its not hard, i just disagree, they did a good job initially and then did a really s*** job and took us backwards, therefore i think we're better off without them, its ok though, i can disagree with you and still feel ok about it because its not disturbing to me that someone has different opinion to mine, i have no agenda

 

You don't grasp the concept at all. From your posts it looks like you're posting on an entirely different subject.

 

There's no doubt at all from your comments that your gripe with the previous board is nothing to do with how they ran the football club but is more to do with Fred being fat.  mackems.gif  I don't think you really have a clue what the previous board achieved for the football club. If you do know, then you have no grasp of the history of the club, given how you dismiss it so easily. Perhaps you think we have a divine right to win a trophy? I don't know, so you tell me. 

 

The reality is there is only so much any board can do. If they put in place everything it takes for the manager to build a team/squad capable of 3 top 5 finishes in a row, even though the league is the true measure I'd suggest that team is capable of winning a cup competition at least. If they fail to do so it can be for any number of reasons but it is not down to the incompetence of the board. This is really, really, really easy to understand once you can see past Fred being fat, a c**t or whatever other idiotic and childish label you want to pin on  him.

 

What happened was they made one terrible managerial appointment. I'm not underestimating how serious this was because it's the most important decision they have to make and they got it badly wrong with Souness. They then failed to put it right with Roeder, although he wasn't a disaster like Souness.  Perhaps they got it right with Allardyce? If so, what will you and your type moan about then, I wonder?

 

again, i UNDERSTAND all of that, i just have a difference of opinion, but if it suits you, you're right, i'm wrong, sick of this now anyway

 

and by the way i'm not a moaner, i am definitely a glass half full supporter, fred's a c***

 

 

I don't care whether you think I'm right or wrong, I'm just pointing out that your criticism of the previous board isn't based on how they performed in their relative roles, rather it's based on Fred being overweight.

 

 

allow me to roll my eyes back at you mate, because i've not mentioned weight at all, read before you post.

[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.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

au contraire, i understand everything here, including the excruciatingly difficult concept to grasp that a players role is different to a directors, are you having a laugh?

 

i just think that freddy shepherd is a stupid c*** that we're better off without, and you dont, that's the only real difference between me and you, could you consider stopping thinking that everyone that doesnt agree with you either doesn't know the facts, or is just too daft to know what they mean?

 

i'd love to know what my agenda is, by the way, because freddy's gone and the majority of people think he was a t*** anyway, i'd have to have a screw loose to be devoting my spare time to wrecking his 'good name'

 

haha. Now you are looking a bit daft. If you think Shepherd is a dick and we are better off without him, then 87 clubs watched us enviously playing in europe regularly, and brought top class players to the club for a canny few years. As usual, I don't expect you to get a perspective, rather than chase a silly agenda. Also, if you think we were better off without the ex board, you wouldn't last 5 minutes supporting a club with a real s**** board.

 

As usual, ALL of your post concerns the personality, which affects your judgement, but I suspect you aren't capable of seeing this. I don't expect you to take up factual issues rather than personalities or you would have done so by now.

 

I'm not having a laugh ref my remarks about the difference in roles between players and directors, I think you - and many others - don't understand this. You clearly don't seem to understand when the job a director does becomes that of the player.

 

BTW, I'll only think we are better off without the ex board, when someone comes along and does better. The fact that you can't grasp this fairly basic concept says everything.

 

 

 

i can grasp the concept of your opinion, its not hard, i just disagree, they did a good job initially and then did a really s*** job and took us backwards, therefore i think we're better off without them, its ok though, i can disagree with you and still feel ok about it because its not disturbing to me that someone has different opinion to mine, i have no agenda

 

You don't grasp the concept at all. From your posts it looks like you're posting on an entirely different subject.

 

There's no doubt at all from your comments that your gripe with the previous board is nothing to do with how they ran the football club but is more to do with Fred being fat.  mackems.gif  I don't think you really have a clue what the previous board achieved for the football club. If you do know, then you have no grasp of the history of the club, given how you dismiss it so easily. Perhaps you think we have a divine right to win a trophy? I don't know, so you tell me. 

 

The reality is there is only so much any board can do. If they put in place everything it takes for the manager to build a team/squad capable of 3 top 5 finishes in a row, even though the league is the true measure I'd suggest that team is capable of winning a cup competition at least. If they fail to do so it can be for any number of reasons but it is not down to the incompetence of the board. This is really, really, really easy to understand once you can see past Fred being fat, a c**t or whatever other idiotic and childish label you want to pin on  him.

 

What happened was they made one terrible managerial appointment. I'm not underestimating how serious this was because it's the most important decision they have to make and they got it badly wrong with Souness. They then failed to put it right with Roeder, although he wasn't a disaster like Souness.  Perhaps they got it right with Allardyce? If so, what will you and your type moan about then, I wonder?

 

again, i UNDERSTAND all of that, i just have a difference of opinion, but if it suits you, you're right, i'm wrong, sick of this now anyway

 

and by the way i'm not a moaner, i am definitely a glass half full supporter, fred's a c***

 

 

I don't care whether you think I'm right or wrong, I'm just pointing out that your criticism of the previous board isn't based on how they performed in their relative roles, rather it's based on Fred being overweight.

 

 

allow me to roll my eyes back at you mate, because i've not mentioned weight at all, read before you post.

 

Your posts clearly indicate that you "dislike" the man despite not knowing him, so "fat" will do. It makes the point that whatever the reason is for this dislike it's nowt to do with his performance in his job. I'd sooner refer to "fat"  to make the point than referencing the daft tripe you actually do write.

 

[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

 

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.

 

 

 

au contraire, i understand everything here, including the excruciatingly difficult concept to grasp that a players role is different to a directors, are you having a laugh?

 

i just think that freddy shepherd is a stupid c*** that we're better off without, and you dont, that's the only real difference between me and you, could you consider stopping thinking that everyone that doesnt agree with you either doesn't know the facts, or is just too daft to know what they mean?

 

i'd love to know what my agenda is, by the way, because freddy's gone and the majority of people think he was a t*** anyway, i'd have to have a screw loose to be devoting my spare time to wrecking his 'good name'

 

haha. Now you are looking a bit daft. If you think Shepherd is a dick and we are better off without him, then 87 clubs watched us enviously playing in europe regularly, and brought top class players to the club for a canny few years. As usual, I don't expect you to get a perspective, rather than chase a silly agenda. Also, if you think we were better off without the ex board, you wouldn't last 5 minutes supporting a club with a real s**** board.

 

As usual, ALL of your post concerns the personality, which affects your judgement, but I suspect you aren't capable of seeing this. I don't expect you to take up factual issues rather than personalities or you would have done so by now.

 

I'm not having a laugh ref my remarks about the difference in roles between players and directors, I think you - and many others - don't understand this. You clearly don't seem to understand when the job a director does becomes that of the player.

 

BTW, I'll only think we are better off without the ex board, when someone comes along and does better. The fact that you can't grasp this fairly basic concept says everything.

 

 

 

i can grasp the concept of your opinion, its not hard, i just disagree, they did a good job initially and then did a really s*** job and took us backwards, therefore i think we're better off without them, its ok though, i can disagree with you and still feel ok about it because its not disturbing to me that someone has different opinion to mine, i have no agenda

 

You don't grasp the concept at all. From your posts it looks like you're posting on an entirely different subject.

 

There's no doubt at all from your comments that your gripe with the previous board is nothing to do with how they ran the football club but is more to do with Fred being fat.  mackems.gif  I don't think you really have a clue what the previous board achieved for the football club. If you do know, then you have no grasp of the history of the club, given how you dismiss it so easily. Perhaps you think we have a divine right to win a trophy? I don't know, so you tell me. 

 

The reality is there is only so much any board can do. If they put in place everything it takes for the manager to build a team/squad capable of 3 top 5 finishes in a row, even though the league is the true measure I'd suggest that team is capable of winning a cup competition at least. If they fail to do so it can be for any number of reasons but it is not down to the incompetence of the board. This is really, really, really easy to understand once you can see past Fred being fat, a c**t or whatever other idiotic and childish label you want to pin on  him.

 

What happened was they made one terrible managerial appointment. I'm not underestimating how serious this was because it's the most important decision they have to make and they got it badly wrong with Souness. They then failed to put it right with Roeder, although he wasn't a disaster like Souness.  Perhaps they got it right with Allardyce? If so, what will you and your type moan about then, I wonder?

 

again, i UNDERSTAND all of that, i just have a difference of opinion, but if it suits you, you're right, i'm wrong, sick of this now anyway

 

and by the way i'm not a moaner, i am definitely a glass half full supporter, fred's a c***

 

 

I don't care whether you think I'm right or wrong, I'm just pointing out that your criticism of the previous board isn't based on how they performed in their relative roles, rather it's based on Fred being overweight.

 

 

allow me to roll my eyes back at you mate, because i've not mentioned weight at all, read before you post.

 

Your posts clearly indicate that you "dislike" the man despite not knowing him, so "fat" will do. It makes the point that whatever the reason is for this dislike it's nowt to do with his performance in his job. I'd sooner refer to "fat"  to make the point than referencing the daft tripe you actually do write.

 

 

haha, nice try

[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.

 

 

 

au contraire, i understand everything here, including the excruciatingly difficult concept to grasp that a players role is different to a directors, are you having a laugh?

 

i just think that freddy shepherd is a stupid c*** that we're better off without, and you dont, that's the only real difference between me and you, could you consider stopping thinking that everyone that doesnt agree with you either doesn't know the facts, or is just too daft to know what they mean?

 

i'd love to know what my agenda is, by the way, because freddy's gone and the majority of people think he was a t*** anyway, i'd have to have a screw loose to be devoting my spare time to wrecking his 'good name'

 

haha. Now you are looking a bit daft. If you think Shepherd is a dick and we are better off without him, then 87 clubs watched us enviously playing in europe regularly, and brought top class players to the club for a canny few years. As usual, I don't expect you to get a perspective, rather than chase a silly agenda. Also, if you think we were better off without the ex board, you wouldn't last 5 minutes supporting a club with a real s**** board.

 

As usual, ALL of your post concerns the personality, which affects your judgement, but I suspect you aren't capable of seeing this. I don't expect you to take up factual issues rather than personalities or you would have done so by now.

 

I'm not having a laugh ref my remarks about the difference in roles between players and directors, I think you - and many others - don't understand this. You clearly don't seem to understand when the job a director does becomes that of the player.

 

BTW, I'll only think we are better off without the ex board, when someone comes along and does better. The fact that you can't grasp this fairly basic concept says everything.

 

 

 

i can grasp the concept of your opinion, its not hard, i just disagree, they did a good job initially and then did a really s*** job and took us backwards, therefore i think we're better off without them, its ok though, i can disagree with you and still feel ok about it because its not disturbing to me that someone has different opinion to mine, i have no agenda

 

You don't grasp the concept at all. From your posts it looks like you're posting on an entirely different subject.

 

There's no doubt at all from your comments that your gripe with the previous board is nothing to do with how they ran the football club but is more to do with Fred being fat.  mackems.gif  I don't think you really have a clue what the previous board achieved for the football club. If you do know, then you have no grasp of the history of the club, given how you dismiss it so easily. Perhaps you think we have a divine right to win a trophy? I don't know, so you tell me.   

 

The reality is there is only so much any board can do. If they put in place everything it takes for the manager to build a team/squad capable of 3 top 5 finishes in a row, even though the league is the true measure I'd suggest that team is capable of winning a cup competition at least. If they fail to do so it can be for any number of reasons but it is not down to the incompetence of the board. This is really, really, really easy to understand once you can see past Fred being fat, a c**t or whatever other idiotic and childish label you want to pin on  him.

 

What happened was they made one terrible managerial appointment. I'm not underestimating how serious this was because it's the most important decision they have to make and they got it badly wrong with Souness. They then failed to put it right with Roeder, although he wasn't a disaster like Souness.  Perhaps they got it right with Allardyce? If so, what will you and your type moan about then, I wonder?

 

again, i UNDERSTAND all of that, i just have a difference of opinion, but if it suits you, you're right, i'm wrong, sick of this now anyway

 

and by the way i'm not a moaner, i am definitely a glass half full supporter, fred's a cunt

 

You still don't see the difference between what a director does for a club and what a player does. Your OPINION may be that Fred is fat, or Fred is a cunt, but what they did for the club is factual, and has absolutely nothing to do with "opinion".

 

That is all.

 

 

[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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

My God. I dont know whether to laugh or cry.

 

So lets get this straight. Because Shepherd was a director on the board, and a stakeholder in the club, you attribute all the success under Sir John Hall to Shepherd as well?

 

Theres just no response to that, because its so idiotic and fundamentally flawed that its quite obvious that youre not interested in anything other than twisting everything possible in the favour of Shepherd.

 

Lets be clear here. Shepherd was on the board from 92 to 96. John Hall was chairman at the time, the man who made the big decisions and lead the overall direction of the club. Whether the directors or board members vote on issues is irrelevent, its still the chairman who is the overall manager of the club. From 97 onwards, Shepherd assumed this role, and its from here that we started going backwards. Whether the rest of the board was still the same or not is also irrelevent, since the previous senior manager had left.

 

But hey, lets ignore the clear and dinstinct differences in roles and the organisational structure of the management in order to back Shepherd.

 

The board of directors has run the football club since 1992. Chez Given, or UV [or both], as well as myself and HTL, have actually explained the mechanism of this in fairly basic terms, so even you should grasp it.

 

I am pleased you think the highest 3 consecutive league positions in 50 years, finishing 4th, 3rd and 5th, is going backwards by the way.

 

I'm also pleased for you, that you still can't grasp the fact the the major shareholders of a multi million pound business don't allow someone with less shares to make the biggest decisions, and run the company, single handedly. The depths you will plummet to, just to satisfy an agenda, like some other people, is unbelievable.

 

 

[Guest BooBoo]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[madras]

is this that argument with those folk.........................

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.........................again ?

[Guest Knightrider]

Wasn't Shepherd part of the old board pre SJH? Is he therefore responsible for those bad old days like he's responsible for the success in some eyes under SJH because he was also part of that board too?

[NE5]

 

 

still waiting for you to say anything, as usual. Why not try to dispute those league positions booboo, c'mon, give us a laugh  mackems.gif

[NE5]

Wasn't Shepherd part of the old board pre SJH? Is he therefore responsible for those bad old days like he's responsible for the success in some eyes under SJH because he was also part of that board too?

 

quite shocked you are stooping to this level mate.

 

The answer is no, by the way.

 

Sir John was though, but resigned when the initial flotation failed due to lack of interest, failing to raise half of 2.5m quid.

 

This is fact by the way, because I put in to buy shares, and had my cheque returned.

 

 

 

 

[Guest BooBoo]

 

 

 

 

still waiting for you to say anything, as usual. Why not try to dispute those league positions booboo, c'mon, give us a laugh  mackems.gif

 

Priceless!!

[NE5]

is this that argument with those folk.........................

 

.........................again ?

 

not really an "Argument" madras, just people disputing facts again.

 

 

[madras]

is this that argument with those folk.........................

 

.........................again ?

 

not really an "Argument" madras, just people disputing facts again.

 

 

or twisting facts to suit their side of the debate.