Mort: I’m in charge

[fredbob]

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

clipped because its getting too long .....

 

I'm cherry picking nothing.

 

Dear me....

 

 

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 never said it does lead to automatic success, but i think it will lead to better long term success. Which is far far more important. Sticking with Dlaglish?? Its a moot point, why can you not see that? We will never know, he brought a lot of good players to the team. How can i definitevely answer 'yes' after only one season. I've only ever seen 2 long term managers at nufc and they achieved the best success.

 

 

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.

 

 

Where has the financial backing of the manager been integral to any of my arguments? It's been an aspect of my arguments but hasnt been the key to my arguments. Of course backing the manager isnt guareteed. I've never disputed that.

 

Not sure what you're trying to get at there.

 

 

[ChezGiven]

Fredbob, which are the teams above us that prove that finance and backing managers with large amounts of cash is not fundamental to success in the prem? The top 12 have all spent large cash in recent seasons.

[fredbob]

Fredbob, which are the teams above us that prove that finance and backing managers with large amounts of cash is not fundamental to success in the prem? The top 12 have all spent large cash in recent seasons.

 

Kind of missed my point, I havent once said that that backing the manager finacially and with time hasnt provided success or isnt fundamental for success. I happen to think that succes is acquired by sticking with a good manager, and success is augmented by backing them financially. There is a subtlety to what im saying which differs from what you are implying. I think both are importnat aspects, however if you were to ask me which would provide the most long term success, then i would say that sticking with the manager would be the best approach.

 

Im tryin to say that gettin the right man for the job and sticking by him is actually more important than the financial backing, however by this i am not implying that financial backing isnt an important aspect, it hugely important, but NOT as important as continutiy of a manager. As has been proven by the current situation we find ourselves in.

 

However, club which have done well in recent years with there limited resources include, Everton, Bolton, Charlton, Blackburn. All clubs which have had steady managers. Hence why i believe sticking with the manager is the more important aspect.

 

Clubs like Liverpool, Arsenal and Man U, have stuck by there manager, even during difficulttimes, but have applied there resources as well in order to sustain the success that they are achieving now.

 

Newcastle, have changed managers and have used there resources quite badly, and in my opinion are struggling because of this approach.

 

[madras]

Fredbob, which are the teams above us that prove that finance and backing managers with large amounts of cash is not fundamental to success in the prem? The top 12 have all spent large cash in recent seasons.

 

Kind of missed my point, I havent once said that that backing the manager finacially and with time hasnt provided success or isnt fundamental for success. I happen to think that succes is acquired by sticking with a good manager, and success is augmented by backing them financially. There is a subtlety to what im saying which differs from what you are implying.

 

Im tryin to say that gettin the right man for the job and sticking by him is actually more important than the financial backing, however by this i am not implying that financial backing isnt an important aspect, it hugely important, but NOT as important as continutiy of a manager. As has been proven by the current situation we find ourselves in.

 

However, club which have done well in recent years with there limited resources include, Everton, Bolton, Charlton, Blackburn. All clubs which have had steady managers. Hence why i believe sticking with the manager is the more important aspect.

 

Clubs like Liverpool, Arsenal and Man U, have stuck by there manager, even during difficulttimes, but have applied there resources as well in order to sustain the success that they are achieving now.

 

Newcastle, have changed managers and have used there resources quite badly, and in my opinion are struggling because of this approach.

all clubs who improved almost straight away.

 

stability doesnt bring success as much as success brings stability

[ChezGiven]

Two teams above us then? Bolton and charlton aren't the best examples really. So blackburn and everton have done well to get where they are. That doesn't mean we should have stuck with the wrong managers.

[fredbob]

Fredbob, which are the teams above us that prove that finance and backing managers with large amounts of cash is not fundamental to success in the prem? The top 12 have all spent large cash in recent seasons.

 

Kind of missed my point, I havent once said that that backing the manager finacially and with time hasnt provided success or isnt fundamental for success. I happen to think that succes is acquired by sticking with a good manager, and success is augmented by backing them financially. There is a subtlety to what im saying which differs from what you are implying.

 

Im tryin to say that gettin the right man for the job and sticking by him is actually more important than the financial backing, however by this i am not implying that financial backing isnt an important aspect, it hugely important, but NOT as important as continutiy of a manager. As has been proven by the current situation we find ourselves in.

 

However, club which have done well in recent years with there limited resources include, Everton, Bolton, Charlton, Blackburn. All clubs which have had steady managers. Hence why i believe sticking with the manager is the more important aspect.

 

Clubs like Liverpool, Arsenal and Man U, have stuck by there manager, even during difficulttimes, but have applied there resources as well in order to sustain the success that they are achieving now.

 

Newcastle, have changed managers and have used there resources quite badly, and in my opinion are struggling because of this approach.

all clubs who improved almost straight away.

 

stability doesnt bring success as much as success brings stability

 

Thats arguable. Everton had a few bad season after very succeful seasons, but the club backed moyes through the difficult periods, not sacked him like we did with SBR. Although thats diverting alittle bit, the point i was making is that these have all achieved relative levels of success with a consistent manager all absent of any decent resources.

[fredbob]

Two teams above us then? Bolton and charlton aren't the best examples really. So blackburn and everton have done well to get where they are. That doesn't mean we should have stuck with the wrong managers.

 

There have been other clubs in the past which have done well albeit in less pressurized times with limited resources, teams like Derby and even Sunderland and Wimbledon.

 

I didnt restart this debate by disputing the appointments, i was disputing a claim that the decline occured at the appointment of Souness, i believe that the sacking of SBR was when the decline occured but that got rebutted for some reason. Then it got dragged all over the plave NE5/HTL style. Iwas just tryin to argue the importance of sticking by the manager, not advocating the backing of a manager who would put the future of the club at risk.

 

I think Charlton and Bolton are actually decent examples, granted Bolton play decent wages, but had they the resources to compete at nufc levels financially then they could of augmented there already overachieved achievements.The same can be said with Charlton, considering the size and level of resources the lcub had, it did well to not only stay the the PL but sustain a decent level of success. Both clubs had long serving managers. Which in my opinion proves the diminshed importance of financial backing.

[ChezGiven]

So those 4 teams have been more successful than us? If you say no then i truly have no idea what you are on about.

[madras]

Fredbob, which are the teams above us that prove that finance and backing managers with large amounts of cash is not fundamental to success in the prem? The top 12 have all spent large cash in recent seasons.

 

Kind of missed my point, I havent once said that that backing the manager finacially and with time hasnt provided success or isnt fundamental for success. I happen to think that succes is acquired by sticking with a good manager, and success is augmented by backing them financially. There is a subtlety to what im saying which differs from what you are implying.

 

Im tryin to say that gettin the right man for the job and sticking by him is actually more important than the financial backing, however by this i am not implying that financial backing isnt an important aspect, it hugely important, but NOT as important as continutiy of a manager. As has been proven by the current situation we find ourselves in.

 

However, club which have done well in recent years with there limited resources include, Everton, Bolton, Charlton, Blackburn. All clubs which have had steady managers. Hence why i believe sticking with the manager is the more important aspect.

 

Clubs like Liverpool, Arsenal and Man U, have stuck by there manager, even during difficulttimes, but have applied there resources as well in order to sustain the success that they are achieving now.

 

Newcastle, have changed managers and have used there resources quite badly, and in my opinion are struggling because of this approach.

all clubs who improved almost straight away.

 

stability doesnt bring success as much as success brings stability

 

Thats arguable. Everton had a few bad season after very succeful seasons, but the club backed moyes through the difficult periods, not sacked him like we did with SBR. Although thats diverting alittle bit, the point i was making is that these have all achieved relative levels of success with a consistent manager all absent of any decent resources.

everton improved straight away i think then nearly got relegated the year after...but they could say moyes had improved their club originally to fall back on....i'm struggling to think of many who've came in and took their club backwards (thinking of the teams souness and roeder had to put out at times i think thats fair)over 6 months and stayed to prove anything.

[fredbob]

Fredbob, which are the teams above us that prove that finance and backing managers with large amounts of cash is not fundamental to success in the prem? The top 12 have all spent large cash in recent seasons.

 

Kind of missed my point, I havent once said that that backing the manager finacially and with time hasnt provided success or isnt fundamental for success. I happen to think that succes is acquired by sticking with a good manager, and success is augmented by backing them financially. There is a subtlety to what im saying which differs from what you are implying.

 

Im tryin to say that gettin the right man for the job and sticking by him is actually more important than the financial backing, however by this i am not implying that financial backing isnt an important aspect, it hugely important, but NOT as important as continutiy of a manager. As has been proven by the current situation we find ourselves in.

 

However, club which have done well in recent years with there limited resources include, Everton, Bolton, Charlton, Blackburn. All clubs which have had steady managers. Hence why i believe sticking with the manager is the more important aspect.

 

Clubs like Liverpool, Arsenal and Man U, have stuck by there manager, even during difficulttimes, but have applied there resources as well in order to sustain the success that they are achieving now.

 

Newcastle, have changed managers and have used there resources quite badly, and in my opinion are struggling because of this approach.

all clubs who improved almost straight away.

 

stability doesnt bring success as much as success brings stability

 

Thats arguable. Everton had a few bad season after very succeful seasons, but the club backed moyes through the difficult periods, not sacked him like we did with SBR. Although thats diverting alittle bit, the point i was making is that these have all achieved relative levels of success with a consistent manager all absent of any decent resources.

everton improved straight away i think then nearly got relegated the year after...but they could say moyes had improved their club originally to fall back on....i'm struggling to think of many who've came in and took their club backwards (thinking of the teams souness and roeder had to put out at times i think thats fair)over 6 months and stayed to prove anything.

 

Again, im not tryin to advocate  any particular appointment, if you read any of my earlier posts i dont mention Souness or Roeder as people we should stick by, im just trying to make a genrelaised point that if we get a competent manager we should stick by him. Also tryin to say that gettin the right man and sticking by him is more important than the financial backing of a manager, which is important but just not as.

 

The clubs ive mentioned are all beneficiaries of this approach.

[madras]

Fredbob, which are the teams above us that prove that finance and backing managers with large amounts of cash is not fundamental to success in the prem? The top 12 have all spent large cash in recent seasons.

 

Kind of missed my point, I havent once said that that backing the manager finacially and with time hasnt provided success or isnt fundamental for success. I happen to think that succes is acquired by sticking with a good manager, and success is augmented by backing them financially. There is a subtlety to what im saying which differs from what you are implying.

 

Im tryin to say that gettin the right man for the job and sticking by him is actually more important than the financial backing, however by this i am not implying that financial backing isnt an important aspect, it hugely important, but NOT as important as continutiy of a manager. As has been proven by the current situation we find ourselves in.

 

However, club which have done well in recent years with there limited resources include, Everton, Bolton, Charlton, Blackburn. All clubs which have had steady managers. Hence why i believe sticking with the manager is the more important aspect.

 

Clubs like Liverpool, Arsenal and Man U, have stuck by there manager, even during difficulttimes, but have applied there resources as well in order to sustain the success that they are achieving now.

 

Newcastle, have changed managers and have used there resources quite badly, and in my opinion are struggling because of this approach.

all clubs who improved almost straight away.

 

stability doesnt bring success as much as success brings stability

 

Thats arguable. Everton had a few bad season after very succeful seasons, but the club backed moyes through the difficult periods, not sacked him like we did with SBR. Although thats diverting alittle bit, the point i was making is that these have all achieved relative levels of success with a consistent manager all absent of any decent resources.

everton improved straight away i think then nearly got relegated the year after...but they could say moyes had improved their club originally to fall back on....i'm struggling to think of many who've came in and took their club backwards (thinking of the teams souness and roeder had to put out at times i think thats fair)over 6 months and stayed to prove anything.

 

Again, im not tryin to advocate  any particular appointment, if you read any of my earlier posts i dont mention Souness or Roeder as people we should stick by, im just trying to make a genrelaised point that if we get a competent manager we should stick by him. Also tryin to say that gettin the right man and sticking by him is more important than the financial backing of a manager, which is important but just not as.

 

The clubs ive mentioned are all beneficiaries of this approach.

i agree with the sentiment,just not sure allardyce is the man.

 

 

 

 

 

 

(now thats how to disagree in a non-spiteful manner.........mick,NE5 take note!)

[Baggio]

So those 4 teams have been more successful than us? If you say no then i truly have no idea what you are on about.

 

What is this thread about anyway?

[madras]

So those 4 teams have been more successful than us? If you say no then i truly have no idea what you are on about.

 

What is this thread about anyway?

does it matter what it's about ? you know how it will end up.

it's all shepherds concoction to stop us arguing about souness Vs bellamy

[fredbob]

Fredbob, which are the teams above us that prove that finance and backing managers with large amounts of cash is not fundamental to success in the prem? The top 12 have all spent large cash in recent seasons.

 

Kind of missed my point, I havent once said that that backing the manager finacially and with time hasnt provided success or isnt fundamental for success. I happen to think that succes is acquired by sticking with a good manager, and success is augmented by backing them financially. There is a subtlety to what im saying which differs from what you are implying.

 

Im tryin to say that gettin the right man for the job and sticking by him is actually more important than the financial backing, however by this i am not implying that financial backing isnt an important aspect, it hugely important, but NOT as important as continutiy of a manager. As has been proven by the current situation we find ourselves in.

 

However, club which have done well in recent years with there limited resources include, Everton, Bolton, Charlton, Blackburn. All clubs which have had steady managers. Hence why i believe sticking with the manager is the more important aspect.

 

Clubs like Liverpool, Arsenal and Man U, have stuck by there manager, even during difficulttimes, but have applied there resources as well in order to sustain the success that they are achieving now.

 

Newcastle, have changed managers and have used there resources quite badly, and in my opinion are struggling because of this approach.

all clubs who improved almost straight away.

 

stability doesnt bring success as much as success brings stability

 

Thats arguable. Everton had a few bad season after very succeful seasons, but the club backed moyes through the difficult periods, not sacked him like we did with SBR. Although thats diverting alittle bit, the point i was making is that these have all achieved relative levels of success with a consistent manager all absent of any decent resources.

everton improved straight away i think then nearly got relegated the year after...but they could say moyes had improved their club originally to fall back on....i'm struggling to think of many who've came in and took their club backwards (thinking of the teams souness and roeder had to put out at times i think thats fair)over 6 months and stayed to prove anything.

 

Again, im not tryin to advocate  any particular appointment, if you read any of my earlier posts i dont mention Souness or Roeder as people we should stick by, im just trying to make a genrelaised point that if we get a competent manager we should stick by him. Also tryin to say that gettin the right man and sticking by him is more important than the financial backing of a manager, which is important but just not as.

 

The clubs ive mentioned are all beneficiaries of this approach.

i agree with the sentiment,just not sure allardyce is the man.

 

 

 

 

 

 

(now thats how to disagree in a non-spiteful manner.........mick,NE5 take note!)

 

It could go either way, but i wont be one of the ones who says we should sack him. I just have an inkling that he could besuccessful.

[fredbob]

So those 4 teams have been more successful than us? If you say no then i truly have no idea what you are on about.

 

During the period that they have all had stable managers, yes. Theres no point tracing back throught their respective histoy's because that doesnt illustrate the specifics of my point. Of course, nufc have been more successful over a course of the premiership, but all our notbale success has occured with long term stable managers.

[madras]

So those 4 teams have been more successful than us? If you say no then i truly have no idea what you are on about.

 

During the period that they have all had stable managers, yes. Theres no point tracing back throught their respective histoy's because that doesnt illustrate the specifics of my point. Of course, nufc have been more successful over a course of the premiership, but all our notbale success has occured with long term stable managers.

but all those clubs saw almost immediate improvment. in nufc's case would robson have still been in place had he took us down and we'd performed worse than guillits team. ?

[Dr Venkman]

The Emirates will pay itself off, that's why it's not a massive financial risk. The naming thing has already secured Arsenal £150m or so, so they're well on their way to securing enough money to pay for it.

 

And the other three, even though they have debts that would be massive risks for most clubs, they've got rich owners who can deal with it.

 

You would have said the same about the SJP expansion 5 years ago

 

And? 5 years ago no one could have predicted that we would be in the freefall that we were at the end of Fred's time. That's stunning, don't you think? 10 years ago I don't think many predicted that we'd be in financial trouble and our future would be looking seemingly bleak. That's the main thing I've been trying to say so far, though god knows I've tried my best to sound as confusing as possible.

 

???

 

And in 5 years time Wenger may have let and Arsenal may be struggling to get 8th place in the Premier league.

 

You've said exactly what I was getting at, the Emirates looks sound now, SJP look sound 5 years ago

 

Aye, the MANAGER makes a massive difference, which is where we went wrong with the appointment of Souness, obviously.

 

.....or even the sacking of SBR?

 

didn't hear too many voices against it at the time.

 

Never mind, after today, do you hope the club continue carrying on putting the books first, standby for more real mediocrity or worse. I thought when the Halls and Shepherd left, all this mediocrity would come to an end. I reckon we need a few of these quality trophy players to get up the league a bit, don't you

 

 

 

I've always been unhappy with the sacking of SBR.

 

I dont know what agenda you have me trying to push but you have the wrong man, i wasnt for Shepard during his reign as chairmen, although i supported most of his decisions. I am not one of these people who think the new board are magically sorting out all the problems, but i am extremely encouraged by what has already occured with the new board, but i feel obliged to respond to some absolute stupendous critism of the new board which is borderline idiotic. considering that we are 5 months into their ownership. Whehther you turn out to be correct or wrong is irrelevant to me but to sit there and criticise something so quickly with absolutley NOTHING solid to back it up except for some loose misinterpretation is mind boggling to me.

 

Idiotic.

 

A simple FACT, dear boy, is that Sir Bobby Robson's team was booed for only finishing 5th, this epitomised the feeling of a lot of fans at that time. I would presume those who booed the team that day were the same people - like booboo - who laugh at the team when they aren't performing well.

 

I'm not saying that you were one of those, because I don't know, but what I do know is if you ignore this comment, you are ignoring history. So don't start laying the blame at the feet of the board, they acted in what was thought was the decision to be made at the time. Most fans backed it - even those who didn't shamefully boo - the only problem was the replacement. What a shame we didn't find the next Arsene Wenger though during the last decade eh, how incompetent can you get

 

 

 

bloody hell man, the stuff you'll come out with to absolve them of any blame, unbelievable

 

"they acted on what they thought was the decision to be made at the time". I fail to see how this is making excuses, unless you are going to tell us that the majority of fans didn't agree that it was time for a change ?

 

 

 

well, first of all, 'dont go laying the blame at the feet of the board', referencing the blame they're getting for a decision THEY made, 100% sums you up

 

secondly, 'they acted on what they thought was the decision to be made at the time', is vague, weak, and ducks BLAME, why are they acting on what other people think? dont they have the courage of their convictions? did they EVER do anything wrong mate apart from appointing souness, or are you just gonna blame the fans, players and managers?

 

and lastly, bobby should have gone at the end of the season previous, waiting and doing it then was STUPID, sorry like, on this occasion FREDDY, WAS STUPID

 

I'm sure if they had used hindsight, like you, they wouldn't have done it either.

 

Only someone really stupid won't understand this.

 

Do you also think Gullit should have been kept on until the end of the season ? Your views have no credibility if they aren't consistent, I don't suppose you will understand this

 

 

 

different situation, different context, different views, yeah he should've been sacked, but had freddy claimed it was his last season pre season and started going over his head to sell players i would say he should've gone BEFORE he decided that sort of thing was a good idea

 

you can have different opinions on when is the right or wrong time to sack one manager as opposed to the next, only a really stupid person wouldnt understand context, or someone with an a*****

[Decky]

I thought Newcastle fans would be happy to see Freddy go, turns out it made them more obsessed

[NE5]

The Emirates will pay itself off, that's why it's not a massive financial risk. The naming thing has already secured Arsenal £150m or so, so they're well on their way to securing enough money to pay for it.

 

And the other three, even though they have debts that would be massive risks for most clubs, they've got rich owners who can deal with it.

 

You would have said the same about the SJP expansion 5 years ago

 

And? 5 years ago no one could have predicted that we would be in the freefall that we were at the end of Fred's time. That's stunning, don't you think? 10 years ago I don't think many predicted that we'd be in financial trouble and our future would be looking seemingly bleak. That's the main thing I've been trying to say so far, though god knows I've tried my best to sound as confusing as possible.

 

???

 

And in 5 years time Wenger may have let and Arsenal may be struggling to get 8th place in the Premier league.

 

You've said exactly what I was getting at, the Emirates looks sound now, SJP look sound 5 years ago

 

Aye, the MANAGER makes a massive difference, which is where we went wrong with the appointment of Souness, obviously.

 

.....or even the sacking of SBR?

 

didn't hear too many voices against it at the time.

 

Never mind, after today, do you hope the club continue carrying on putting the books first, standby for more real mediocrity or worse. I thought when the Halls and Shepherd left, all this mediocrity would come to an end. I reckon we need a few of these quality trophy players to get up the league a bit, don't you

 

 

 

I've always been unhappy with the sacking of SBR.

 

I dont know what agenda you have me trying to push but you have the wrong man, i wasnt for Shepard during his reign as chairmen, although i supported most of his decisions. I am not one of these people who think the new board are magically sorting out all the problems, but i am extremely encouraged by what has already occured with the new board, but i feel obliged to respond to some absolute stupendous critism of the new board which is borderline idiotic. considering that we are 5 months into their ownership. Whehther you turn out to be correct or wrong is irrelevant to me but to sit there and criticise something so quickly with absolutley NOTHING solid to back it up except for some loose misinterpretation is mind boggling to me.

 

Idiotic.

 

A simple FACT, dear boy, is that Sir Bobby Robson's team was booed for only finishing 5th, this epitomised the feeling of a lot of fans at that time. I would presume those who booed the team that day were the same people - like booboo - who laugh at the team when they aren't performing well.

 

I'm not saying that you were one of those, because I don't know, but what I do know is if you ignore this comment, you are ignoring history. So don't start laying the blame at the feet of the board, they acted in what was thought was the decision to be made at the time. Most fans backed it - even those who didn't shamefully boo - the only problem was the replacement. What a shame we didn't find the next Arsene Wenger though during the last decade eh, how incompetent can you get

 

 

 

bloody hell man, the stuff you'll come out with to absolve them of any blame, unbelievable

 

"they acted on what they thought was the decision to be made at the time". I fail to see how this is making excuses, unless you are going to tell us that the majority of fans didn't agree that it was time for a change ?

 

 

well, first of all, 'dont go laying the blame at the feet of the board', referencing the blame they're getting for a decision THEY made, 100% sums you up

 

secondly, 'they acted on what they thought was the decision to be made at the time', is vague, weak, and ducks BLAME, why are they acting on what other people think? dont they have the courage of their convictions? did they EVER do anything wrong mate apart from appointing souness, or are you just gonna blame the fans, players and managers?

 

and lastly, bobby should have gone at the end of the season previous, waiting and doing it then was STUPID, sorry like, on this occasion FREDDY, WAS STUPID

 

I'm sure if they had used hindsight, like you, they wouldn't have done it either.

 

Only someone really stupid won't understand this.

 

Do you also think Gullit should have been kept on until the end of the season ? Your views have no credibility if they aren't consistent, I don't suppose you will understand this

 

 

 

different situation, different context, different views, yeah he should've been sacked, but had freddy claimed it was his last season pre season and started going over his head to sell players i would say he should've gone BEFORE he decided that sort of thing was a good idea

 

you can have different opinions on when is the right or wrong time to sack one manager as opposed to the next, only a really stupid person wouldnt understand context, or someone with an a*****

 

Firstly, it is isn't a different situation or a different context at all. It's about sacking your manager when you feel that it is time for a change/lost the plot/not going to go any further.

 

The only problem with sacking Robson was the replacement. Sacking Gullit wasn't a problem - at the SAME time of the season - because the replacement was a good one.

 

There is nothing difficult about this. It's only difficult if you are looking for a stick to beat someone with. I'm also very pleased for you that you another one of these people who think the major shareholders of a multi million pound company allow someone else to make the major managerial decisions all on their own. Do you think Ashley will allow Mort to run the club all on his own ? What an absolutely stupid notion, I don't believe the amount of times myself and others ie ChezGiven and UV [i think] have had to point this out.

 

By the way, people/fan pressure DOES count in football in case you don't realise. But the point of my comment is to say that a lof of fans and possibly even the majority of the clubs supporters, agreed with the decision to sack Bobby Robson, so don't bother using hindsight to say it was wrong now, or to change history and say it wasn't the case.

 

 

[fredbob]

The Emirates will pay itself off, that's why it's not a massive financial risk. The naming thing has already secured Arsenal £150m or so, so they're well on their way to securing enough money to pay for it.

 

And the other three, even though they have debts that would be massive risks for most clubs, they've got rich owners who can deal with it.

 

You would have said the same about the SJP expansion 5 years ago

 

And? 5 years ago no one could have predicted that we would be in the freefall that we were at the end of Fred's time. That's stunning, don't you think? 10 years ago I don't think many predicted that we'd be in financial trouble and our future would be looking seemingly bleak. That's the main thing I've been trying to say so far, though god knows I've tried my best to sound as confusing as possible.

 

???

 

And in 5 years time Wenger may have let and Arsenal may be struggling to get 8th place in the Premier league.

 

You've said exactly what I was getting at, the Emirates looks sound now, SJP look sound 5 years ago

 

Aye, the MANAGER makes a massive difference, which is where we went wrong with the appointment of Souness, obviously.

 

.....or even the sacking of SBR?

 

didn't hear too many voices against it at the time.

 

Never mind, after today, do you hope the club continue carrying on putting the books first, standby for more real mediocrity or worse. I thought when the Halls and Shepherd left, all this mediocrity would come to an end. I reckon we need a few of these quality trophy players to get up the league a bit, don't you

 

 

 

I've always been unhappy with the sacking of SBR.

 

I dont know what agenda you have me trying to push but you have the wrong man, i wasnt for Shepard during his reign as chairmen, although i supported most of his decisions. I am not one of these people who think the new board are magically sorting out all the problems, but i am extremely encouraged by what has already occured with the new board, but i feel obliged to respond to some absolute stupendous critism of the new board which is borderline idiotic. considering that we are 5 months into their ownership. Whehther you turn out to be correct or wrong is irrelevant to me but to sit there and criticise something so quickly with absolutley NOTHING solid to back it up except for some loose misinterpretation is mind boggling to me.

 

Idiotic.

 

A simple FACT, dear boy, is that Sir Bobby Robson's team was booed for only finishing 5th, this epitomised the feeling of a lot of fans at that time. I would presume those who booed the team that day were the same people - like booboo - who laugh at the team when they aren't performing well.

 

I'm not saying that you were one of those, because I don't know, but what I do know is if you ignore this comment, you are ignoring history. So don't start laying the blame at the feet of the board, they acted in what was thought was the decision to be made at the time. Most fans backed it - even those who didn't shamefully boo - the only problem was the replacement. What a shame we didn't find the next Arsene Wenger though during the last decade eh, how incompetent can you get

 

 

 

bloody hell man, the stuff you'll come out with to absolve them of any blame, unbelievable

 

"they acted on what they thought was the decision to be made at the time". I fail to see how this is making excuses, unless you are going to tell us that the majority of fans didn't agree that it was time for a change ?

 

 

well, first of all, 'dont go laying the blame at the feet of the board', referencing the blame they're getting for a decision THEY made, 100% sums you up

 

secondly, 'they acted on what they thought was the decision to be made at the time', is vague, weak, and ducks BLAME, why are they acting on what other people think? dont they have the courage of their convictions? did they EVER do anything wrong mate apart from appointing souness, or are you just gonna blame the fans, players and managers?

 

and lastly, bobby should have gone at the end of the season previous, waiting and doing it then was STUPID, sorry like, on this occasion FREDDY, WAS STUPID

 

I'm sure if they had used hindsight, like you, they wouldn't have done it either.

 

Only someone really stupid won't understand this.

 

Do you also think Gullit should have been kept on until the end of the season ? Your views have no credibility if they aren't consistent, I don't suppose you will understand this

 

 

 

different situation, different context, different views, yeah he should've been sacked, but had freddy claimed it was his last season pre season and started going over his head to sell players i would say he should've gone BEFORE he decided that sort of thing was a good idea

 

you can have different opinions on when is the right or wrong time to sack one manager as opposed to the next, only a really stupid person wouldnt understand context, or someone with an a*****

 

Firstly, it is isn't a different situation or a different context at all. It's about sacking your manager when you feel that it is time for a change/lost the plot/not going to go any further.

 

The only problem with sacking Robson was the replacement. Sacking Gullit wasn't a problem - at the SAME time of the season - because the replacement was a good one.

 

There is nothing difficult about this. It's only difficult if you are looking for a stick to beat someone with. I'm also very pleased for you that you another one of these people who think the major shareholders of a multi million pound company allow someone else to make the major managerial decisions all on their own. Do you think Ashley will allow Mort to run the club all on his own ? What an absolutely stupid notion, I don't believe the amount of times myself and others ie ChezGiven and UV [i think] have had to point this out.

 

By the way, people/fan pressure DOES count in football in case you don't realise. But the point of my comment is to say that a lof of fans and possibly even the majority of the clubs supporters, agreed with the decision to sack Bobby Robson, so don't bother using hindsight to say it was wrong now, or to change history and say it wasn't the case.

 

 

 

Dont you think that the chairman, as the bridge between the fans and the board, is accountable for the boards decision. Isnt that part and parcel of the job. I dont see anyone specifying that Sheperd was directly responsible for the appointment of Souness. But rather using Sheperds name in context of the him being representativeof the boards views.

 

Ive said all this before, but i guess you see what you want to see.

[NE5]

The Emirates will pay itself off, that's why it's not a massive financial risk. The naming thing has already secured Arsenal £150m or so, so they're well on their way to securing enough money to pay for it.

 

And the other three, even though they have debts that would be massive risks for most clubs, they've got rich owners who can deal with it.

 

You would have said the same about the SJP expansion 5 years ago

 

And? 5 years ago no one could have predicted that we would be in the freefall that we were at the end of Fred's time. That's stunning, don't you think? 10 years ago I don't think many predicted that we'd be in financial trouble and our future would be looking seemingly bleak. That's the main thing I've been trying to say so far, though god knows I've tried my best to sound as confusing as possible.

 

???

 

And in 5 years time Wenger may have let and Arsenal may be struggling to get 8th place in the Premier league.

 

You've said exactly what I was getting at, the Emirates looks sound now, SJP look sound 5 years ago

 

Aye, the MANAGER makes a massive difference, which is where we went wrong with the appointment of Souness, obviously.

 

.....or even the sacking of SBR?

 

didn't hear too many voices against it at the time.

 

Never mind, after today, do you hope the club continue carrying on putting the books first, standby for more real mediocrity or worse. I thought when the Halls and Shepherd left, all this mediocrity would come to an end. I reckon we need a few of these quality trophy players to get up the league a bit, don't you

 

 

 

I've always been unhappy with the sacking of SBR.

 

I dont know what agenda you have me trying to push but you have the wrong man, i wasnt for Shepard during his reign as chairmen, although i supported most of his decisions. I am not one of these people who think the new board are magically sorting out all the problems, but i am extremely encouraged by what has already occured with the new board, but i feel obliged to respond to some absolute stupendous critism of the new board which is borderline idiotic. considering that we are 5 months into their ownership. Whehther you turn out to be correct or wrong is irrelevant to me but to sit there and criticise something so quickly with absolutley NOTHING solid to back it up except for some loose misinterpretation is mind boggling to me.

 

Idiotic.

 

A simple FACT, dear boy, is that Sir Bobby Robson's team was booed for only finishing 5th, this epitomised the feeling of a lot of fans at that time. I would presume those who booed the team that day were the same people - like booboo - who laugh at the team when they aren't performing well.

 

I'm not saying that you were one of those, because I don't know, but what I do know is if you ignore this comment, you are ignoring history. So don't start laying the blame at the feet of the board, they acted in what was thought was the decision to be made at the time. Most fans backed it - even those who didn't shamefully boo - the only problem was the replacement. What a shame we didn't find the next Arsene Wenger though during the last decade eh, how incompetent can you get

 

 

 

bloody hell man, the stuff you'll come out with to absolve them of any blame, unbelievable

 

"they acted on what they thought was the decision to be made at the time". I fail to see how this is making excuses, unless you are going to tell us that the majority of fans didn't agree that it was time for a change ?

 

 

well, first of all, 'dont go laying the blame at the feet of the board', referencing the blame they're getting for a decision THEY made, 100% sums you up

 

secondly, 'they acted on what they thought was the decision to be made at the time', is vague, weak, and ducks BLAME, why are they acting on what other people think? dont they have the courage of their convictions? did they EVER do anything wrong mate apart from appointing souness, or are you just gonna blame the fans, players and managers?

 

and lastly, bobby should have gone at the end of the season previous, waiting and doing it then was STUPID, sorry like, on this occasion FREDDY, WAS STUPID

 

I'm sure if they had used hindsight, like you, they wouldn't have done it either.

 

Only someone really stupid won't understand this.

 

Do you also think Gullit should have been kept on until the end of the season ? Your views have no credibility if they aren't consistent, I don't suppose you will understand this

 

 

 

different situation, different context, different views, yeah he should've been sacked, but had freddy claimed it was his last season pre season and started going over his head to sell players i would say he should've gone BEFORE he decided that sort of thing was a good idea

 

you can have different opinions on when is the right or wrong time to sack one manager as opposed to the next, only a really stupid person wouldnt understand context, or someone with an a*****

 

Firstly, it is isn't a different situation or a different context at all. It's about sacking your manager when you feel that it is time for a change/lost the plot/not going to go any further.

 

The only problem with sacking Robson was the replacement. Sacking Gullit wasn't a problem - at the SAME time of the season - because the replacement was a good one.

 

There is nothing difficult about this. It's only difficult if you are looking for a stick to beat someone with. I'm also very pleased for you that you another one of these people who think the major shareholders of a multi million pound company allow someone else to make the major managerial decisions all on their own. Do you think Ashley will allow Mort to run the club all on his own ? What an absolutely stupid notion, I don't believe the amount of times myself and others ie ChezGiven and UV [i think] have had to point this out.

 

By the way, people/fan pressure DOES count in football in case you don't realise. But the point of my comment is to say that a lof of fans and possibly even the majority of the clubs supporters, agreed with the decision to sack Bobby Robson, so don't bother using hindsight to say it was wrong now, or to change history and say it wasn't the case.

 

 

 

Dont you think that the chairman, as the bridge between the fans and the board, is accountable for the boards decision. Isnt that part and parcel of the job. I dont see anyone specifying that Sheperd was directly responsible for the appointment of Souness. But rather using Sheperds name in context of the him being representativeof the boards views.

 

Ive said all this before, but i guess you see what you want to see.

 

eerrr... [bit in bold] ....... 

 

I'm not seeing anything other than basic common sense BTW

 

 

 

 

[Guest alex]

He was directly responsible. Even if he wasn't solely responsible. As chairman and a major shareholder you can see why he gets the blame.

[fredbob]

The Emirates will pay itself off, that's why it's not a massive financial risk. The naming thing has already secured Arsenal £150m or so, so they're well on their way to securing enough money to pay for it.

 

And the other three, even though they have debts that would be massive risks for most clubs, they've got rich owners who can deal with it.

 

You would have said the same about the SJP expansion 5 years ago

 

And? 5 years ago no one could have predicted that we would be in the freefall that we were at the end of Fred's time. That's stunning, don't you think? 10 years ago I don't think many predicted that we'd be in financial trouble and our future would be looking seemingly bleak. That's the main thing I've been trying to say so far, though god knows I've tried my best to sound as confusing as possible.

 

???

 

And in 5 years time Wenger may have let and Arsenal may be struggling to get 8th place in the Premier league.

 

You've said exactly what I was getting at, the Emirates looks sound now, SJP look sound 5 years ago

 

Aye, the MANAGER makes a massive difference, which is where we went wrong with the appointment of Souness, obviously.

 

.....or even the sacking of SBR?

 

didn't hear too many voices against it at the time.

 

Never mind, after today, do you hope the club continue carrying on putting the books first, standby for more real mediocrity or worse. I thought when the Halls and Shepherd left, all this mediocrity would come to an end. I reckon we need a few of these quality trophy players to get up the league a bit, don't you

 

 

 

I've always been unhappy with the sacking of SBR.

 

I dont know what agenda you have me trying to push but you have the wrong man, i wasnt for Shepard during his reign as chairmen, although i supported most of his decisions. I am not one of these people who think the new board are magically sorting out all the problems, but i am extremely encouraged by what has already occured with the new board, but i feel obliged to respond to some absolute stupendous critism of the new board which is borderline idiotic. considering that we are 5 months into their ownership. Whehther you turn out to be correct or wrong is irrelevant to me but to sit there and criticise something so quickly with absolutley NOTHING solid to back it up except for some loose misinterpretation is mind boggling to me.

 

Idiotic.

 

A simple FACT, dear boy, is that Sir Bobby Robson's team was booed for only finishing 5th, this epitomised the feeling of a lot of fans at that time. I would presume those who booed the team that day were the same people - like booboo - who laugh at the team when they aren't performing well.

 

I'm not saying that you were one of those, because I don't know, but what I do know is if you ignore this comment, you are ignoring history. So don't start laying the blame at the feet of the board, they acted in what was thought was the decision to be made at the time. Most fans backed it - even those who didn't shamefully boo - the only problem was the replacement. What a shame we didn't find the next Arsene Wenger though during the last decade eh, how incompetent can you get

 

 

 

bloody hell man, the stuff you'll come out with to absolve them of any blame, unbelievable

 

"they acted on what they thought was the decision to be made at the time". I fail to see how this is making excuses, unless you are going to tell us that the majority of fans didn't agree that it was time for a change ?

 

 

well, first of all, 'dont go laying the blame at the feet of the board', referencing the blame they're getting for a decision THEY made, 100% sums you up

 

secondly, 'they acted on what they thought was the decision to be made at the time', is vague, weak, and ducks BLAME, why are they acting on what other people think? dont they have the courage of their convictions? did they EVER do anything wrong mate apart from appointing souness, or are you just gonna blame the fans, players and managers?

 

and lastly, bobby should have gone at the end of the season previous, waiting and doing it then was STUPID, sorry like, on this occasion FREDDY, WAS STUPID

 

I'm sure if they had used hindsight, like you, they wouldn't have done it either.

 

Only someone really stupid won't understand this.

 

Do you also think Gullit should have been kept on until the end of the season ? Your views have no credibility if they aren't consistent, I don't suppose you will understand this

 

 

 

different situation, different context, different views, yeah he should've been sacked, but had freddy claimed it was his last season pre season and started going over his head to sell players i would say he should've gone BEFORE he decided that sort of thing was a good idea

 

you can have different opinions on when is the right or wrong time to sack one manager as opposed to the next, only a really stupid person wouldnt understand context, or someone with an a*****

 

Firstly, it is isn't a different situation or a different context at all. It's about sacking your manager when you feel that it is time for a change/lost the plot/not going to go any further.

 

The only problem with sacking Robson was the replacement. Sacking Gullit wasn't a problem - at the SAME time of the season - because the replacement was a good one.

 

There is nothing difficult about this. It's only difficult if you are looking for a stick to beat someone with. I'm also very pleased for you that you another one of these people who think the major shareholders of a multi million pound company allow someone else to make the major managerial decisions all on their own. Do you think Ashley will allow Mort to run the club all on his own ? What an absolutely stupid notion, I don't believe the amount of times myself and others ie ChezGiven and UV [i think] have had to point this out.

 

By the way, people/fan pressure DOES count in football in case you don't realise. But the point of my comment is to say that a lof of fans and possibly even the majority of the clubs supporters, agreed with the decision to sack Bobby Robson, so don't bother using hindsight to say it was wrong now, or to change history and say it wasn't the case.

 

 

 

Dont you think that the chairman, as the bridge between the fans and the board, is accountable for the boards decision. Isnt that part and parcel of the job. I dont see anyone specifying that Sheperd was directly responsible for the appointment of Souness. But rather using Sheperds name in context of the him being representativeof the boards views.

 

Ive said all this before, but i guess you see what you want to see.

 

eerrr... [bit in bold] ....... 

 

I'm not seeing anything other than basic common sense BTW

 

 

 

 

 

Again, read it again, no one is arguing that Fred Sheperd made the decision. No one has tried to argue that Sheperd made the decision. People are using his name because he is accountable to the fans for the boards decision. Simple as that.

 

Whether he argued till he was blue against the appointmnet, he will always be accoutable for the decision because that is his job.

 

See what you want to see.

[NE5]

He was directly responsible. Even if he wasn't solely responsible. As chairman and a major shareholder you can see why he gets the blame.

 

Nor the credit for anything ?

 

Constant negative vibes. We didn't qualify for europe more than anyone else bar 4 clubs through having a shit board and chairman that didnt' know what they were doing. Nor expand the stadium to 52000, nor show ambition to bring top players to finance the signing of top players to the club, nor the signing of Woodgate 6 months prior to the summer of 2003 but is slated for spending nothing in the summer instead and millions to qualify in the first place ....

 

The list is as long as your arm. I've just pointed out facts. If the FACT that the club was light years more healthy than it was in 1992 doesn't suit people's "opinions" then thats just too bad.

 

 

[NE5]

The Emirates will pay itself off, that's why it's not a massive financial risk. The naming thing has already secured Arsenal £150m or so, so they're well on their way to securing enough money to pay for it.

 

And the other three, even though they have debts that would be massive risks for most clubs, they've got rich owners who can deal with it.

 

You would have said the same about the SJP expansion 5 years ago

 

And? 5 years ago no one could have predicted that we would be in the freefall that we were at the end of Fred's time. That's stunning, don't you think? 10 years ago I don't think many predicted that we'd be in financial trouble and our future would be looking seemingly bleak. That's the main thing I've been trying to say so far, though god knows I've tried my best to sound as confusing as possible.

 

???

 

And in 5 years time Wenger may have let and Arsenal may be struggling to get 8th place in the Premier league.

 

You've said exactly what I was getting at, the Emirates looks sound now, SJP look sound 5 years ago

 

Aye, the MANAGER makes a massive difference, which is where we went wrong with the appointment of Souness, obviously.

 

.....or even the sacking of SBR?

 

didn't hear too many voices against it at the time.

 

Never mind, after today, do you hope the club continue carrying on putting the books first, standby for more real mediocrity or worse. I thought when the Halls and Shepherd left, all this mediocrity would come to an end. I reckon we need a few of these quality trophy players to get up the league a bit, don't you

 

 

 

I've always been unhappy with the sacking of SBR.

 

I dont know what agenda you have me trying to push but you have the wrong man, i wasnt for Shepard during his reign as chairmen, although i supported most of his decisions. I am not one of these people who think the new board are magically sorting out all the problems, but i am extremely encouraged by what has already occured with the new board, but i feel obliged to respond to some absolute stupendous critism of the new board which is borderline idiotic. considering that we are 5 months into their ownership. Whehther you turn out to be correct or wrong is irrelevant to me but to sit there and criticise something so quickly with absolutley NOTHING solid to back it up except for some loose misinterpretation is mind boggling to me.

 

Idiotic.

 

A simple FACT, dear boy, is that Sir Bobby Robson's team was booed for only finishing 5th, this epitomised the feeling of a lot of fans at that time. I would presume those who booed the team that day were the same people - like booboo - who laugh at the team when they aren't performing well.

 

I'm not saying that you were one of those, because I don't know, but what I do know is if you ignore this comment, you are ignoring history. So don't start laying the blame at the feet of the board, they acted in what was thought was the decision to be made at the time. Most fans backed it - even those who didn't shamefully boo - the only problem was the replacement. What a shame we didn't find the next Arsene Wenger though during the last decade eh, how incompetent can you get

 

 

 

bloody hell man, the stuff you'll come out with to absolve them of any blame, unbelievable

 

"they acted on what they thought was the decision to be made at the time". I fail to see how this is making excuses, unless you are going to tell us that the majority of fans didn't agree that it was time for a change ?

 

 

well, first of all, 'dont go laying the blame at the feet of the board', referencing the blame they're getting for a decision THEY made, 100% sums you up

 

secondly, 'they acted on what they thought was the decision to be made at the time', is vague, weak, and ducks BLAME, why are they acting on what other people think? dont they have the courage of their convictions? did they EVER do anything wrong mate apart from appointing souness, or are you just gonna blame the fans, players and managers?

 

and lastly, bobby should have gone at the end of the season previous, waiting and doing it then was STUPID, sorry like, on this occasion FREDDY, WAS STUPID

 

I'm sure if they had used hindsight, like you, they wouldn't have done it either.

 

Only someone really stupid won't understand this.

 

Do you also think Gullit should have been kept on until the end of the season ? Your views have no credibility if they aren't consistent, I don't suppose you will understand this

 

 

 

different situation, different context, different views, yeah he should've been sacked, but had freddy claimed it was his last season pre season and started going over his head to sell players i would say he should've gone BEFORE he decided that sort of thing was a good idea

 

you can have different opinions on when is the right or wrong time to sack one manager as opposed to the next, only a really stupid person wouldnt understand context, or someone with an a*****

 

Firstly, it is isn't a different situation or a different context at all. It's about sacking your manager when you feel that it is time for a change/lost the plot/not going to go any further.

 

The only problem with sacking Robson was the replacement. Sacking Gullit wasn't a problem - at the SAME time of the season - because the replacement was a good one.

 

There is nothing difficult about this. It's only difficult if you are looking for a stick to beat someone with. I'm also very pleased for you that you another one of these people who think the major shareholders of a multi million pound company allow someone else to make the major managerial decisions all on their own. Do you think Ashley will allow Mort to run the club all on his own ? What an absolutely stupid notion, I don't believe the amount of times myself and others ie ChezGiven and UV [i think] have had to point this out.

 

By the way, people/fan pressure DOES count in football in case you don't realise. But the point of my comment is to say that a lof of fans and possibly even the majority of the clubs supporters, agreed with the decision to sack Bobby Robson, so don't bother using hindsight to say it was wrong now, or to change history and say it wasn't the case.

 

 

 

Dont you think that the chairman, as the bridge between the fans and the board, is accountable for the boards decision. Isnt that part and parcel of the job. I dont see anyone specifying that Sheperd was directly responsible for the appointment of Souness. But rather using Sheperds name in context of the him being representativeof the boards views.

 

Ive said all this before, but i guess you see what you want to see.

 

eerrr... [bit in bold] ....... 

 

I'm not seeing anything other than basic common sense BTW

 

 

 

 

 

Again, read it again, no one is arguing that Fred Sheperd made the decision. No one has tried to argue that Sheperd made the decision. People are using his name because he is accountable to the fans for the boards decision. Simple as that.

 

Whether he argued till he was blue against the appointmnet, he will always be accoutable for the decision because that is his job.

 

See what you want to see.

 

Well. I think it is you that is seeing what you want to see. Wouldn't you agree that qualifying for europe more than any club bar 4 must mean that they got a bit more right than wrong, and more right than most