Mort: I’m in charge

[Guest alex]

Where have I said other clubs don't appoint shit managers? I'm saying Shepherd and the board should be criticised for appointing Souness and Roeder in the first place.

[Mick]

Where have I said other clubs don't appoint s*** managers? I'm saying Shepherd and the board should be criticised for appointing Souness and Roeder in the first place.

 

When has not saying something ever had anything to do with the argument?

[NE5]

Where have I said other clubs don't appoint shit managers? I'm saying Shepherd and the board should be criticised for appointing Souness and Roeder in the first place.

 

Souness, yes of course. But Roeder had its merits [ I suspect it was always a stop gap too while they looked around, and I've no problem with that either if that was the case]

 

You don't see my point do you ?

 

 

[NE5]

Where have I said other clubs don't appoint s*** managers? I'm saying Shepherd and the board should be criticised for appointing Souness and Roeder in the first place.

 

When has not saying something ever had anything to do with the argument?

 

I see that you have re-surfaced here, having been shot down earlier by myself, sniffer and 2 others.

 

 

[Guest alex]

Where have I said other clubs don't appoint shit managers? I'm saying Shepherd and the board should be criticised for appointing Souness and Roeder in the first place.

 

Souness, yes of course. But Roeder had its merits [ I suspect it was always a stop gap too while they looked around, and I've no problem with that either if that was the case]

 

You don't see my point do you ?

 

 

I do see your point. I don't agree with it though. Roeder and Souness were both shit appointments doomed to failure from the off due to neither being up tp the job. Hence the criticism from me.

[Mick]

 

I see that you have re-surfaced here, having been shot down earlier by myself, sniffer and 2 others.

 

 

 

[NE5]

 

I see that you have re-surfaced here, having been shot down earlier by myself, sniffer and 2 others.

 

 

 

 

confirmed

 

 

[NE5]

Where have I said other clubs don't appoint shit managers? I'm saying Shepherd and the board should be criticised for appointing Souness and Roeder in the first place.

 

Souness, yes of course. But Roeder had its merits [ I suspect it was always a stop gap too while they looked around, and I've no problem with that either if that was the case]

 

You don't see my point do you ?

 

 

I do see your point. I don't agree with it though. Roeder and Souness were both shit appointments doomed to failure from the off due to neither being up tp the job. Hence the criticism from me.

 

thats your prerogative of course.

 

Do you agree that nobody makes the "right" appointment every time ie everybody makes the "wrong" appointment on occasions, and that by virtue of the fact that we qualified for europe more than everybody but 4 teams, it shows we got things right more than most ?

 

 

[Mick]

 

thats your prerogative of course.

 

Do you agree that nobody makes the "right" appointment every time ie everybody makes the "wrong" appointment on occasions, and that by virtue of the fact that we qualified for europe more than everybody but 4 teams, it shows we got things right more than most ?

 

 

 

Appointing Robson proves we got it right once under your beloved.

[Howaythelads]

These ridiculous and childish snipes go a long way to ruining posts.

 

Thought I'd mention it, like.

[Dave]

These ridiculous and childish snipes go a long way to ruining posts.

 

Thought I'd mention it, like.

 

You started it.

[Baggio]

These ridiculous and childish snipes go a long way to ruining posts.

 

Thought I'd mention it, like.

 

You started it.

 

Did he?

 

Ta.

[Howaythelads]

These ridiculous and childish snipes go a long way to ruining posts.

 

Thought I'd mention it, like.

 

You started it.

 

Thought you did....na na ni na na 

[Dave]

[NE5]

 

thats your prerogative of course.

 

Do you agree that nobody makes the "right" appointment every time ie everybody makes the "wrong" appointment on occasions, and that by virtue of the fact that we qualified for europe more than everybody but 4 teams, it shows we got things right more than most ?

 

 

 

Appointing Robson proves we got it right once under your beloved.

 

usual bog standard reply when you are out of your depth and a beaten man.

 

Actually, its pathetic.

 

 

[Guest alex]

Where have I said other clubs don't appoint shit managers? I'm saying Shepherd and the board should be criticised for appointing Souness and Roeder in the first place.

 

Souness, yes of course. But Roeder had its merits [ I suspect it was always a stop gap too while they looked around, and I've no problem with that either if that was the case]

 

You don't see my point do you ?

 

 

I do see your point. I don't agree with it though. Roeder and Souness were both shit appointments doomed to failure from the off due to neither being up tp the job. Hence the criticism from me.

 

thats your prerogative of course.

 

Do you agree that nobody makes the "right" appointment every time ie everybody makes the "wrong" appointment on occasions, and that by virtue of the fact that we qualified for europe more than everybody but 4 teams, it shows we got things right more than most ?

 

 

I criticise when I think people get things wrong and praise when they get things right.

[NE5]

Where have I said other clubs don't appoint shit managers? I'm saying Shepherd and the board should be criticised for appointing Souness and Roeder in the first place.

 

Souness, yes of course. But Roeder had its merits [ I suspect it was always a stop gap too while they looked around, and I've no problem with that either if that was the case]

 

You don't see my point do you ?

 

 

I do see your point. I don't agree with it though. Roeder and Souness were both shit appointments doomed to failure from the off due to neither being up tp the job. Hence the criticism from me.

 

thats your prerogative of course.

 

Do you agree that nobody makes the "right" appointment every time ie everybody makes the "wrong" appointment on occasions, and that by virtue of the fact that we qualified for europe more than everybody but 4 teams, it shows we got things right more than most ?

 

 

I criticise when I think people get things wrong and praise when they get things right.

 

of course, but do you agree that by virtue of qualifying for europe more than everybody but 4 teams, it shows we got things right more than most ?

 

 

[Guest alex]

Honestly man. We had a canny run under Shepherd, aye. He could have done things differently. Unlike you though I thought both appointments were poor from day one.

[Mick]

 

usual bog standard reply when you are out of your depth and a beaten man.

 

Actually, its pathetic.

 

 

 

Getting it right once in 6 attempts is pathetic, correct.

[NE5]

 

usual bog standard reply when you are out of your depth and a beaten man.

 

Actually, its pathetic.

 

 

 

Getting it right once in 6 attempts is pathetic, correct.

 

usual hindsight.

 

Keegan and Robson did very well. Dalglish and Gullit reached the FA Cup Final. That was massive success by the way, under the board who spent 30 years selling our best players, that you think were "just the same" as the Halls and Shepherd. Explain the hypocrisy ?

 

Dalglish was more qualified than Alex Ferguson at the time, I will remind you. Who would you have preferred, Peter Reid ? I just bet you were one of those who jumped onto the "ozzie's babes" cliche under the astute chairmanship of George "I'm not a fat bastard who eats all the pies so that must make me a good chairman " Forbes.

 

Have you replied to the post where sniffer, myself and the other 2 people shot you down in flames ? Thought not.

 

 

[NE5]

Honestly man. We had a canny run under Shepherd, aye. He could have done things differently. Unlike you though I thought both appointments were poor from day one.

 

yep, I will admit that while I wouldn't have picked Roeder, I said that it was worth a go for the obvious reasons stipulated, so I didn't criticise it.

 

 

[fredbob]

the quickest way is to spend money you don't have.

 

I'll eagerly await the "big four" apart from Chelsea and most of the rest of the teams in the league going into administration then.

 

Strange how all these people who are slating having ambiton are unable to see this is how the top 4 became the top 4, and our relative success in our recent past has also came as a result of the same thing. Do they really think you can be successful unless you try to compete at the top levels ?

 

Quite amazing.

 

 

Do you not think that it acould also be due to the fact they made astute appointments and didnt sack them as regularly as they changed their pants.?

 

Well, are you saying we should have stuck with Dalglish ?

 

Or Gullit, and not therefore appointed Bobby Robson when we did ?

 

 

 

Been here before mate, the appointments arent what im scrutinizing, the 2 major responsiblities of the board are the appointment of the right manager adn the backing of the manager, for years, like the top 4 we have backied the manager, but when it comes to appointing and sticking by the right manager, we've failed miserably, and it kinda shows in the urrent gulf of class between us and the top 4.

 

Im saying that the rotation of managers is the reason why we're behind the top4.

 

Are you now ?

 

The top 4 have kept the manager because they were in the top 4 wouldn't you say .......

 

Why is the 5th most qualified club for europe over a decade = s**** managers all the time ?

 

Are Everton behind the top 4 because they have rotated their managers ? Moyes has been there longer than Chelsea and Liverpools current managers .......

 

And, do you therefore think we should have kept Dalglish and Gullit ?

 

I tell you something, which is categoricaly correct. We can keep any manager you care to name at this club for 20 years if you like, but if the board don't match the ambition of the boards at the top 4 clubs, we will never join them.

 

 

 

(your first point)Ok, but we were in the top 5 the last time we changed our manager.

 

(your second point) 5th most qualified club in over a decade is such a misleading stat, stop using it. I've already said why its a misleading stat and cant be bothered to explain it all again. Nothing seems to go in with you.

 

And they say ignorance is bliss...

 

(your third point) No, Everton arent behind jut becasue they rotated there managers, they are behind because they dont have the same financial resources as we do.

 

Care to explain how they were one of the biggest supported clubs in the country, won a couple of league titles, FA Cups and a european trophy while we were in the 2nd division then, and below them for decades, including pinching the only manager we had who put together a team that finished in the top 5 in 40 years ?

 

Then tell us who reversed that trend ?

 

Don't bother saying its a misleading statistic, because it isn't. Answer it, if you can, and if you don't, I'll put it down to you not having a clue.

 

However its interesting you brought Everton up because they are the only team to break the top 4 since the top 4 became so dominant. All with a steady manager. So that kinda goes to prove my point. That despite having limited resources with a consistent manger they were able to break the top 4.

 

We will see. I don't agree it would be down to sticking with a manager for 6 years though, and our crowd wouldn't put up with 6 years of the dross - for the most part - Everton have watched either, they are up in arms at watching a fraction of that.

 

Again to reiterate my point - i believe that an astute appointment needs to be stuck by, not sacked when the "cracks" seem to be appearing.

Where do you think everton would be today if they sacked Moyes when he finished 11th having finished 4th the previous season?

Why was SBR sacked after finishing 5th? Did they make an astute apointment to justify the decision?

 

(your 4th point) Something of a moot point. As i believed at the time that Dalglish was a good appointment, but who is to saythat he wouldnt of been a success. The fact that he destryoed a title challengin squad was too much, so i'd agree with the sacking. It was justifiable.

 

(your final point)  I tell you something, which is categoricaly correct. We can keep changing managers for the next 20 years if you like, and if the board match the financial ambitions the top 4 clubs, we still wont join them.

 

We've tried the "back as many managers as possible" routine, now i suggest we start backing the right man for the job and not sack him after the first apparent "decline" under his leadership. a la SBR.  

 

some people would say Allardyce is an astute appointment, in fact they do. Come back when you understand where the boards role becomes the responsibility of the manager, and his players. As you don't appear to have answered, do you think we should have stuck with Dalglish ? Do you think we should have stuck with Gullit ? Do you think we should have stuck with Souness ? Do you think we should stick with Allardyce ? By your reckoning, we should have stuck with Dalglish, and by now, we would automatically be winning the league. An absurd theory.

 

 

 

Care to explain how they were one of the biggest supported clubs in the country, won a couple of league titles, FA Cups and a european trophy while we were in the 2nd division then, and below them for decades, including pinching the only manager we had who put together a team that finished in the top 5 in 40 years ?

 

Then tell us who reversed that trend

 

Guess this is gonna be one of those moments where i say i dont understand.

 

I dont understand. I dont understand quite how that is relevant to the current situation with Everton and Moyes, and Newcastle with SBR,Souness, Roeder and Allardyce. My point is about the continuity of the management being key to success EVEN without proper backing.

 

I dont understand why the achievements of the old board are quite relevant to the point i am making. What has the history of the club got to do with my theory that sticking with the manager has been the key to Evertons recent success.

 

My point, is that appointing and sticking with the right manager is just as important if not more important than bacaking them financially. There are a number of clubs who have proved that to be the case. 

 

My point is that if you get the right manager and stick by him, you will atttain more level of success then if you appoint the wrong managers but back everyone unscrupiuosly. 

 

My point isnt that we will break into the top 4 with a consistent manager without backing. For me the success of other club with lower budgets than ours proves to show that financial power and backing isnt the SINGLE most important aspect of running a successful club, but rather the key to augmenting our success.

 

How anaybody cant see that the top5 Euro qual is a misleading fact is beyond me.

 

If you will please answer me this,

 

Team 'A' qualifies for Europe 6 times in 10 seasons.

Team 'B' finishes in the top 10, 4 times out of 10 seasons.

 

Which team was the most successful?

 

Now if you cant answer one of those definitevely then you cant use in as conclusive proof of success. Simple. If YOU dont answer that question, then you will lose alot of credibilty in my eyes. I happen to think you are an excellent fountain of knowledge but your application of knowledge is horrendous.

 

 

I was against Allardyce to be honest, in fact i remeber arguing with you a while back about which appointment was the best. (i think) however i will stand by him, like i have for every single appointment bar Souness and Roeder. i happen to think that Allardyce has all the credentials to bring us into a successfuly era to be honest.

 

Do i think we should of stuck with Dalglish? Dont you think its something of a moot point considering we will never no if it was a correct decision or not. I do think we should stick with Allardyce yes, because if in 4 years time he puts us into a comfortable position where there is significant improvemtn then it will be worhtwhile becasue of the good it does for the clubs morale and reputation.

 

By your reckoning, we should have stuck with Dalglish, and by now, we would automatically be winning the league. An absurd theory.

 

Lol, errr what? Fancy pointing out where i said that?? Credibility shrinking faster than i thought. Oh dear.

 

By your reckoning if we throw money at the problem we will break into the top 4.

 

What is your measure of success for the board?

 

After they estabilished us in the premiership and made us title contenders what do you think there objectives for the future was?

 

Do you think they delievered on those objectives?

 

Unless you see that the most important objectives for any institution are the ones your are actively trying to achieve you will never see the point that everyone os putting across. If you fail to achieve those objectives, you cant fall back onto the achievemnts of the past as a decent explanation for the current failures. Simple innit!!

 

Aplologies for the big post, but if you would humour me please and answer all the questions for me instead of cherry picking any flaws that would be greatly appreciated.

[Howaythelads]

 

{Massive amount of blah blah blah.....farting and more blah blah blah....}

 

My point, is that appointing and sticking with the right manager is just as important if not more important than bacaking them financially. There are a number of clubs who have proved that to be the case. 

 

My point is that if you get the right manager and stick by him, you will atttain more level of success then if you appoint the wrong managers but back everyone unscrupiuosly. 

 

{Massive amount of blah blah blah.....farting and more blah blah blah....}

 

 

You stick with the RIGHT manager and you back him.  This is obvious and nobody is saying otherwise as far as I can tell.

 

1. It's not easy to appoint the RIGHT manager.

2. It's not automatic that a Board will financially back the manager.

3. When you know you have the wrong man, or the current man can take you no further, you SACK him.

 

The first 2 points are what many people on here very much don't want to acknowledge as being true.

 

[NE5]

 

Lol, errr what? Fancy pointing out where i said that?? Credibility shrinking faster than i thought. Oh dear.

 

By your reckoning if we throw money at the problem we will break into the top 4.

 

What is your measure of success for the board?

 

After they estabilished us in the premiership and made us title contenders what do you think there objectives for the future was?

 

Do you think they delievered on those objectives?

 

Unless you see that the most important objectives for any institution are the ones your are actively trying to achieve you will never see the point that everyone os putting across. If you fail to achieve those objectives, you cant fall back onto the achievemnts of the past as a decent explanation for the current failures. Simple innit!!

 

Aplologies for the big post, but if you would humour me please and answer all the questions for me instead of cherry picking any flaws that would be greatly appreciated.

 

clipped because its getting too long .....

 

I'm cherry picking nothing.

 

Sticking with a manager DOES NOT lead to automatic success. This is why I asked you if you think we should have stuck with Dalglish ? Yes or no ? It appears by your criteria that you think we should have done. If your answer is no, then you are then saying that the board was right to sack him, and you accept that you have to sack the manager if you think it is right to do so and therefore destroying your entire point.

 

I would not swap Evertons last decade for ours by the way. I would guess that not too many people other than you would suggest that they would do this.

 

The way to success is to appoint the right manager and back him with the resources. These are essential. Backing the manager is a decision made by the board, it is not automatic, you appear not to understand this and this is what people like me keep trying to explain. If you are too young to remember the directors through the 60's, 70's and 80's, then look at how the mackems have been run by Bob Murray. It is the same.

 

Finally, if appointing the "right" man was so easy, then everybody would do it, and I'lll leave you to think about this absurd notion in your own time.

 

 

 

 

[fredbob]

 

{Massive amount of blah blah blah.....farting and more blah blah blah....}

 

My point, is that appointing and sticking with the right manager is just as important if not more important than bacaking them financially. There are a number of clubs who have proved that to be the case. 

 

My point is that if you get the right manager and stick by him, you will atttain more level of success then if you appoint the wrong managers but back everyone unscrupiuosly. 

 

{Massive amount of blah blah blah.....farting and more blah blah blah....}

 

 

You stick with the RIGHT manager and you back him.  This is obvious and nobody is saying otherwise as far as I can tell.

 

1. It's not easy to appoint the RIGHT manager.

2. It's not automatic that a Board will financially back the manager.

3. When you know you have the wrong man, or the current man can take you no further, you SACK him.

 

The first 2 points are what many people on here very much don't want to acknowledge as being true.

 

 

I couldnt agree more with you. I also acknowledge that appointing the right man is a difficult, and i have never attacked the board in general, but rather the era of which Shepard was in charge, because in my opinion this is when the decline started. My original argument was that i thought that the decline occured at the sackig of SBR who i acknowledge hadnt had the best of seasons footballing wise but had still achieved a notable finish to the season. He was a victim of his age and the result against Partizan Belgrade the saem season, coupled with missing the CL spot to Liverpool. My point is that when perspective and common sense was required the most, the board failed to deliver a sensible decision and sacked the second best manager in their "ownership" of the club. The future of the club wasnt assesed when making this decision and we are paying the price for it right now.

 

I never brought up the names of Dalglish and Gullit because they werent part of my arguments. That was brought up by NE5. In retort to my "keep the right" manager line. No idea why.

 

[{Massive amount of blah blah blah.....farting and more blah blah blah....}/quote]

 

Oh dear, how embarressing for an old man to put that.