Mort Expects Arrivals

[fredbob]

We do have ambition, but we didnt have the means to achieve it at the time that Allardyce took over, ie youth system, scouting, backroon staff etc. There didnt seem to be a plan but there was an apparent burdening debt which looked to afffect the future fo the club.

 

Stability for me is having the platform to achieve something. We look like a different club off the field, but now we need to sort whats going on it. Whats the solution? Sack the manager, taking that stability away or stick with him see where he may lead us.

 

What season are we expecting to see the fruits of this plan, any ideas? What if all these other pesky clubs have plans

 

I have a plan that some class maverick, others say it is a timeless classic plan: HAVE BETTER PLAYERS THAN THE OPPOSTION & THEN WHEN YOU PLAY THEM SCORE MORE GOALS THAN THEM

 

I dont know but lets sack him after 8 months and never find out rahter than giving him a reasonable amount of time to find out.

 

Did I say sack him? Did you even read my post?

 

What is a reasonable amount of time, how long are YOU willing to give Sam?

 

Then whats your point? What were you implying by your post.

 

I personally would of been happy to give him till next season before making any serious decision. He said he needs 3 years but i dont see why the next part of the plan (getting good performances on the field) cant be implemented after this summer.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

If stability is finishing mid table every season then i don't want it.

 

 

 

If stablilty is having a healthy environemnt to achieve a considerable amount, then i want it.

 

You need ambition to 'achieve a considerable amount' you don't just get that from stability.

 

 

 

We do have ambition, but we didnt have the means to achieve it at the time that Allardyce took over, ie youth system, scouting, backroon staff etc. There didnt seem to be a plan but there was an apparent burdening debt which looked to afffect the future fo the club.

 

Stability for me is having the platform to achieve something. We look like a different club off the field, but now we need to sort whats going on it. Whats the solution? Sack the manager, taking that stability away or stick with him see where he may lead us.

 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

So, we qualified for europe more than everybody but 4 teams, and everybody had a "plan" except us

 

 

 

Crap stat, said it all before but you see what you wanna see. Not saying we didnt have a plan, but do you think we implented the plan to the end seeing as though you wanna go down that route?

 

Boring.

 

not for the first time, factual information destroys your entire "opinion"

 

What do you mean "to the end". Are you saying we should have gave Dalglish, gullit, Souness or Roeder 5 years ?

 

 

 

Facts which dont paint a true picture. Im saying that a plan has an point, do you think that the board implented there plan in the end? Are we reaping the benefits of this plan? Was Souness part of this  long term plan?

 

So we didn't have a "plan" during the era of Dalglish, Gullit, Souness and Roeder ?

 

And you think we should have gave all of them more time to implement their "plans"

 

If we had no "plan", then all those 87 clubs we qualified for europe more than, can't have had much of a "plan" themselves, wouldn't you agree ?

 

 

 

At least 2 of our european campaigns have been back door though (losing cup finalists under Gullit, snaking into the Intertoto under Bobby)

 

 

 

For "back door" what you really mean is, "within the rules that apply to all clubs."

 

Agreed completely, but nothing to do with planning either is it?

[fredbob]

If stability is finishing mid table every season then i don't want it.

 

 

 

If stablilty is having a healthy environemnt to achieve a considerable amount, then i want it.

 

You need ambition to 'achieve a considerable amount' you don't just get that from stability.

 

 

 

We do have ambition, but we didnt have the means to achieve it at the time that Allardyce took over, ie youth system, scouting, backroon staff etc. There didnt seem to be a plan but there was an apparent burdening debt which looked to afffect the future fo the club.

 

Stability for me is having the platform to achieve something. We look like a different club off the field, but now we need to sort whats going on it. Whats the solution? Sack the manager, taking that stability away or stick with him see where he may lead us.

 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

So, we qualified for europe more than everybody but 4 teams, and everybody had a "plan" except us

 

 

 

Crap stat, said it all before but you see what you wanna see. Not saying we didnt have a plan, but do you think we implented the plan to the end seeing as though you wanna go down that route?

 

Boring.

 

not for the first time, factual information destroys your entire "opinion"

 

What do you mean "to the end". Are you saying we should have gave Dalglish, gullit, Souness or Roeder 5 years ?

 

 

 

Facts which dont paint a true picture. Im saying that a plan has an point, do you think that the board implented there plan in the end? Are we reaping the benefits of this plan? Was Souness part of this  long term plan?

 

So we didn't have a "plan" during the era of Dalglish, Gullit, Souness and Roeder ?

 

And you think we should have gave all of them more time to implement their "plans"

 

If we had no "plan", then all those 87 clubs we qualified for europe more than, can't have had much of a "plan" themselves, wouldn't you agree ?

 

 

 

From what i saw, after SBR, ie the decline of the old board. There didnt seem to be any plans, and the appointment of Souness underlied that fact. They showed that the appoint was reactive as opposed to proactive. You can never have a reactive approach for long term plans to be successfull. It doesnt work.

 

Again, this whole argument has started by one little monir point of a bigger picture. Yet again you are failing to address the whole point of the original post and picking off the smaller less significant aspect.

 

If you want me to blow your "top 4 stat" out the water i can do if you'd like. Upto you?

[UV]

This is the key to yours and the borthers grim entire argument it would appear, and is pretty short sighted and also not what im arguing, because after all, ambition is always in the long term. Its the ultimate goal. The use of "short term ambition" would suggest that you understad that point as well.

 

Im actually saying that as long as the long term, ultimate goal stays the same (which it will do) and we are constantly looking to achieve our ultimate goal, then what harm does lowering the expecations and short term goals have on that ultimate ambtion being achieved?

 

Every team in the world has the long term ambition to be the best team in the world. The only stumbling block to achieving this ambition is that every other team in the world has the long term ambition to be the best team in the world.

 

We're not going to ever achieve that long term ambition if we don't first achieve short term goals, and the sooner we do that the better.

 

Remember the fable of the tortoise & the hare?

 

 

Does lowering the expectations give the management and board a more healthier environment to achieve success. I think so.

 

Boro, Bolton, Charlton are some of your models for this approach.

 

As for the comment about improvement on Roeder, id have to agree to a certain degree, we havent seen a visible improvement on the field, but in defence of Allardyce and Mort we have seen what appears to be a massive upheaval in what happens off it. This links directly with my view that as long as we are "constantly looking to achieve our ultimate goal" then it would be ok in the long run to lower our expectations a bit in the short term.

 

Dont get me wrong, i dont find what is occuring on the pitch acceptable, but i think with all the changes that have occured off the pitch, its already an improvement on what we saw last year.

 

Maybe that should of been our expectations, to see some stability at the club.

 

Have there really been improvements off the field? Or have there just been changes? How is the improvement being measured?

 

My guess is you'll say time is needed for these "improvements" to come to fruition and show results. Well I have no problem giving the manager and board time for things such as that, but not if it comes at the expense of the first team.

[fredbob]

This is the key to yours and the borthers grim entire argument it would appear, and is pretty short sighted and also not what im arguing, because after all, ambition is always in the long term. Its the ultimate goal. The use of "short term ambition" would suggest that you understad that point as well.

 

Im actually saying that as long as the long term, ultimate goal stays the same (which it will do) and we are constantly looking to achieve our ultimate goal, then what harm does lowering the expecations and short term goals have on that ultimate ambtion being achieved?

 

Every team in the world has the long term ambition to be the best team in the world. The only stumbling block to achieving this ambition is that every other team in the world has the long term ambition to be the best team in the world.

 

We're not going to ever achieve that long term ambition if we don't first achieve short term goals, and the sooner we do that the better.

 

Remember the fable of the tortoise & the hare?

 

 

Does lowering the expectations give the management and board a more healthier environment to achieve success. I think so.

 

Boro, Bolton, Charlton are some of your models for this approach.

 

As for the comment about improvement on Roeder, id have to agree to a certain degree, we havent seen a visible improvement on the field, but in defence of Allardyce and Mort we have seen what appears to be a massive upheaval in what happens off it. This links directly with my view that as long as we are "constantly looking to achieve our ultimate goal" then it would be ok in the long run to lower our expectations a bit in the short term.

 

Dont get me wrong, i dont find what is occuring on the pitch acceptable, but i think with all the changes that have occured off the pitch, its already an improvement on what we saw last year.

 

Maybe that should of been our expectations, to see some stability at the club.

 

Have there really been improvements off the field? Or have there just been changes? How is the improvement being measured?

 

My guess is you'll say time is needed for these "improvements" to come to fruition and show results. Well I have no problem giving the manager and board time for things such as that, but not if it comes at the expense of the first team.

 

Id agree genreally with what you're saying, i mean, i am arguing more about the good effects of lowering expectations a little at the club. I personally dont think the expectations currently match the current situation of the club.

 

 

Remember the fable of the tortoise & the hare?

 

Yes, the tortoise won off the top of my head by taking his sweet time. Long time since i read it so probably havent interpreted it properly...

 

Boro, Bolton, Charlton are some of your models for this approach.

 

How have these clubs expectations been lowered a bit in order to provide an easier environment? If anything there expectations and ambtions werent what they should of been.

 

Have there really been improvements off the field? Or have there just been changes? How is the improvement being measured?

 

Well in my opinion yes, the active youth policy, the coaching set ups, the innovation that Allardyce has looked to implement, these were all vast iprovement from the last regimes. Im not saying they have been successful, YET, but are definite improvemnts becasue they gears us up to the future.

 

My guess is you'll say time is needed for these "improvements" to come to fruition and show results

 

To an extent yes, there needs to be context to this though, i agree that the performance of the first team shouldnt be sacrficed under any circumstances, however i feel that Allardyce needs a decent amount of time, the less time he has, the more excuses he has for failure. I think it would be best the the club to give him an environment where he has no excuses for his failures. The beginning of next season is the minimum time id of given him.

[NE5]

If stability is finishing mid table every season then i don't want it.

 

 

 

If stablilty is having a healthy environemnt to achieve a considerable amount, then i want it.

 

You need ambition to 'achieve a considerable amount' you don't just get that from stability.

 

 

 

We do have ambition, but we didnt have the means to achieve it at the time that Allardyce took over, ie youth system, scouting, backroon staff etc. There didnt seem to be a plan but there was an apparent burdening debt which looked to afffect the future fo the club.

 

Stability for me is having the platform to achieve something. We look like a different club off the field, but now we need to sort whats going on it. Whats the solution? Sack the manager, taking that stability away or stick with him see where he may lead us.

 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

So, we qualified for europe more than everybody but 4 teams, and everybody had a "plan" except us

 

 

 

Crap stat, said it all before but you see what you wanna see. Not saying we didnt have a plan, but do you think we implented the plan to the end seeing as though you wanna go down that route?

 

Boring.

 

not for the first time, factual information destroys your entire "opinion"

 

What do you mean "to the end". Are you saying we should have gave Dalglish, gullit, Souness or Roeder 5 years ?

 

 

 

Facts which dont paint a true picture. Im saying that a plan has an point, do you think that the board implented there plan in the end? Are we reaping the benefits of this plan? Was Souness part of this  long term plan?

 

So we didn't have a "plan" during the era of Dalglish, Gullit, Souness and Roeder ?

 

And you think we should have gave all of them more time to implement their "plans"

 

If we had no "plan", then all those 87 clubs we qualified for europe more than, can't have had much of a "plan" themselves, wouldn't you agree ?

 

 

 

At least 2 of our european campaigns have been back door though (losing cup finalists under Gullit, snaking into the Intertoto under Bobby)

 

 

 

For "back door" what you really mean is, "within the rules that apply to all clubs."

 

Agreed completely, but nothing to do with planning either is it?

 

why point it out then, and what has any sort of "planning" got to do with it

 

PS. Nobody complained when we won the Fairs Cup, finishing 10th in the league and qualifying by the "back door". Take my word for it.

 

 

[NE5]

If stability is finishing mid table every season then i don't want it.

 

 

 

If stablilty is having a healthy environemnt to achieve a considerable amount, then i want it.

 

You need ambition to 'achieve a considerable amount' you don't just get that from stability.

 

 

 

We do have ambition, but we didnt have the means to achieve it at the time that Allardyce took over, ie youth system, scouting, backroon staff etc. There didnt seem to be a plan but there was an apparent burdening debt which looked to afffect the future fo the club.

 

Stability for me is having the platform to achieve something. We look like a different club off the field, but now we need to sort whats going on it. Whats the solution? Sack the manager, taking that stability away or stick with him see where he may lead us.

 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

So, we qualified for europe more than everybody but 4 teams, and everybody had a "plan" except us

 

 

 

Crap stat, said it all before but you see what you wanna see. Not saying we didnt have a plan, but do you think we implented the plan to the end seeing as though you wanna go down that route?

 

Boring.

 

not for the first time, factual information destroys your entire "opinion"

 

What do you mean "to the end". Are you saying we should have gave Dalglish, gullit, Souness or Roeder 5 years ?

 

 

 

Facts which dont paint a true picture. Im saying that a plan has an point, do you think that the board implented there plan in the end? Are we reaping the benefits of this plan? Was Souness part of this  long term plan?

 

So we didn't have a "plan" during the era of Dalglish, Gullit, Souness and Roeder ?

 

And you think we should have gave all of them more time to implement their "plans"

 

If we had no "plan", then all those 87 clubs we qualified for europe more than, can't have had much of a "plan" themselves, wouldn't you agree ?

 

 

 

From what i saw, after SBR, ie the decline of the old board. There didnt seem to be any plans, and the appointment of Souness underlied that fact. They showed that the appoint was reactive as opposed to proactive. You can never have a reactive approach for long term plans to be successfull. It doesnt work.

 

Again, this whole argument has started by one little monir point of a bigger picture. Yet again you are failing to address the whole point of the original post and picking off the smaller less significant aspect.

 

If you want me to blow your "top 4 stat" out the water i can do if you'd like. Upto you?

 

Its a real shame you completely disregard the fact that other clubs have these grand "plans" that you think lead to automatic success.

 

Maybe you ought to write to them or something and demand they all fall over and allow our "plan" to be "the plan".

 

And - I take it that you still think Dalglish, Gullit, Souness and Roeder should have been allowed more time to carry out their "plans"

 

BTW. Only 4 clubs have qualified more than us for the CL and europe within the last decade, and going back further, to 1992 as well. I'm waiting for your "opinion" on this, because you sure as hell won't produce a stat to disprove it.

 

 

[Baggio]

Don't give the fucking idiot a penny, he's as clueless as Souness.

[fredbob]

If stability is finishing mid table every season then i don't want it.

 

 

 

If stablilty is having a healthy environemnt to achieve a considerable amount, then i want it.

 

You need ambition to 'achieve a considerable amount' you don't just get that from stability.

 

 

 

We do have ambition, but we didnt have the means to achieve it at the time that Allardyce took over, ie youth system, scouting, backroon staff etc. There didnt seem to be a plan but there was an apparent burdening debt which looked to afffect the future fo the club.

 

Stability for me is having the platform to achieve something. We look like a different club off the field, but now we need to sort whats going on it. Whats the solution? Sack the manager, taking that stability away or stick with him see where he may lead us.

 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

So, we qualified for europe more than everybody but 4 teams, and everybody had a "plan" except us

 

 

 

Crap stat, said it all before but you see what you wanna see. Not saying we didnt have a plan, but do you think we implented the plan to the end seeing as though you wanna go down that route?

 

Boring.

 

not for the first time, factual information destroys your entire "opinion"

 

What do you mean "to the end". Are you saying we should have gave Dalglish, gullit, Souness or Roeder 5 years ?

 

 

 

Facts which dont paint a true picture. Im saying that a plan has an point, do you think that the board implented there plan in the end? Are we reaping the benefits of this plan? Was Souness part of this  long term plan?

 

So we didn't have a "plan" during the era of Dalglish, Gullit, Souness and Roeder ?

 

And you think we should have gave all of them more time to implement their "plans"

 

If we had no "plan", then all those 87 clubs we qualified for europe more than, can't have had much of a "plan" themselves, wouldn't you agree ?

 

 

 

From what i saw, after SBR, ie the decline of the old board. There didnt seem to be any plans, and the appointment of Souness underlied that fact. They showed that the appoint was reactive as opposed to proactive. You can never have a reactive approach for long term plans to be successfull. It doesnt work.

 

Again, this whole argument has started by one little monir point of a bigger picture. Yet again you are failing to address the whole point of the original post and picking off the smaller less significant aspect.

 

If you want me to blow your "top 4 stat" out the water i can do if you'd like. Upto you?

 

Its a real shame you completely disregard the fact that other clubs have these grand "plans" that you think lead to automatic success.

 

Maybe you ought to write to them or something and demand they all fall over and allow our "plan" to be "the plan".

 

And - I take it that you still think Dalglish, Gullit, Souness and Roeder should have been allowed more time to carry out their "plans"

 

BTW. Only 4 clubs have qualified more than us for the CL and europe within the last decade, and going back further, to 1992 as well. I'm waiting for your "opinion" on this, because you sure as hell won't produce a stat to disprove it.

 

 

 

Its a real shame you completely disregard the fact that other clubs have these grand "plans" that you think lead to automatic success.

 

This another one of things that you make up in your head?? Where have i said that?

 

Maybe you ought to write to them or something and demand they all fall over and allow our "plan" to be "the plan".]

 

errr.....what?

 

And - I take it that you still think Dalglish, Gullit, Souness and Roeder should have been allowed more time to carry out their "plans"

 

eh? See above comments

 

You're doing nothing but making yourself look pretty silly and desperate to be honest.

 

BTW. Only 4 clubs have qualified more than us for the CL and europe within the last decade, and going back further, to 1992 as well. I'm waiting for your "opinion" on this, because you sure as hell won't produce a stat to disprove it.

 

Ah yes, the infamous "top 4 Euro qualification" stat which you cling to so valiantly. I dont aim to disprove the stat young man, but i could quite easily put a lot of perspective on it, some much needed perspective, some perspective which kind of undermines every argument that you have that falls back on this stat.

 

 

[NE5]

If stability is finishing mid table every season then i don't want it.

 

 

 

If stablilty is having a healthy environemnt to achieve a considerable amount, then i want it.

 

You need ambition to 'achieve a considerable amount' you don't just get that from stability.

 

 

 

We do have ambition, but we didnt have the means to achieve it at the time that Allardyce took over, ie youth system, scouting, backroon staff etc. There didnt seem to be a plan but there was an apparent burdening debt which looked to afffect the future fo the club.

 

Stability for me is having the platform to achieve something. We look like a different club off the field, but now we need to sort whats going on it. Whats the solution? Sack the manager, taking that stability away or stick with him see where he may lead us.

 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

So, we qualified for europe more than everybody but 4 teams, and everybody had a "plan" except us

 

 

 

Crap stat, said it all before but you see what you wanna see. Not saying we didnt have a plan, but do you think we implented the plan to the end seeing as though you wanna go down that route?

 

Boring.

 

not for the first time, factual information destroys your entire "opinion"

 

What do you mean "to the end". Are you saying we should have gave Dalglish, gullit, Souness or Roeder 5 years ?

 

 

 

Facts which dont paint a true picture. Im saying that a plan has an point, do you think that the board implented there plan in the end? Are we reaping the benefits of this plan? Was Souness part of this  long term plan?

 

So we didn't have a "plan" during the era of Dalglish, Gullit, Souness and Roeder ?

 

And you think we should have gave all of them more time to implement their "plans"

 

If we had no "plan", then all those 87 clubs we qualified for europe more than, can't have had much of a "plan" themselves, wouldn't you agree ?

 

 

 

From what i saw, after SBR, ie the decline of the old board. There didnt seem to be any plans, and the appointment of Souness underlied that fact. They showed that the appoint was reactive as opposed to proactive. You can never have a reactive approach for long term plans to be successfull. It doesnt work.

 

Again, this whole argument has started by one little monir point of a bigger picture. Yet again you are failing to address the whole point of the original post and picking off the smaller less significant aspect.

 

If you want me to blow your "top 4 stat" out the water i can do if you'd like. Upto you?

 

Its a real shame you completely disregard the fact that other clubs have these grand "plans" that you think lead to automatic success.

 

Maybe you ought to write to them or something and demand they all fall over and allow our "plan" to be "the plan".

 

And - I take it that you still think Dalglish, Gullit, Souness and Roeder should have been allowed more time to carry out their "plans"

 

BTW. Only 4 clubs have qualified more than us for the CL and europe within the last decade, and going back further, to 1992 as well. I'm waiting for your "opinion" on this, because you sure as hell won't produce a stat to disprove it.

 

 

 

Its a real shame you completely disregard the fact that other clubs have these grand "plans" that you think lead to automatic success.

 

This another one of things that you make up in your head?? Where have i said that?

 

Maybe you ought to write to them or something and demand they all fall over and allow our "plan" to be "the plan".]

 

errr.....what?

 

And - I take it that you still think Dalglish, Gullit, Souness and Roeder should have been allowed more time to carry out their "plans"

 

eh? See above comments

 

You're doing nothing but making yourself look pretty silly and desperate to be honest.

 

BTW. Only 4 clubs have qualified more than us for the CL and europe within the last decade, and going back further, to 1992 as well. I'm waiting for your "opinion" on this, because you sure as hell won't produce a stat to disprove it.

 

Ah yes, the infamous "top 4 Euro qualification" stat which you cling to so valiantly. I dont aim to disprove the stat young man, but i could quite easily put a lot of perspective on it, some much needed perspective, some perspective which kind of undermines every argument that you have that falls back on this stat.

 

 

you're backtracking.

 

My point is quite clear. You advocate giving people time but don't directly say that the club was wrong - at the time - to make a managerial change. Therefore, you are moving the goalposts to suit your "opinion"

 

The perspective that matters, is the FACT that as only 4 clubs qualified for europe more than us, they haven't had nearly as bad a "plan" as you make out. In fact, they must have had a better "plan" than most other clubs.

 

And - you actually SAID you would disprove that stat, and now say you can't.

 

Cheers for the reply, I think I've said all there is to say now.

 

 

[fredbob]

If stability is finishing mid table every season then i don't want it.

 

 

 

If stablilty is having a healthy environemnt to achieve a considerable amount, then i want it.

 

You need ambition to 'achieve a considerable amount' you don't just get that from stability.

 

 

 

We do have ambition, but we didnt have the means to achieve it at the time that Allardyce took over, ie youth system, scouting, backroon staff etc. There didnt seem to be a plan but there was an apparent burdening debt which looked to afffect the future fo the club.

 

Stability for me is having the platform to achieve something. We look like a different club off the field, but now we need to sort whats going on it. Whats the solution? Sack the manager, taking that stability away or stick with him see where he may lead us.

 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

So, we qualified for europe more than everybody but 4 teams, and everybody had a "plan" except us

 

 

 

Crap stat, said it all before but you see what you wanna see. Not saying we didnt have a plan, but do you think we implented the plan to the end seeing as though you wanna go down that route?

 

Boring.

 

not for the first time, factual information destroys your entire "opinion"

 

What do you mean "to the end". Are you saying we should have gave Dalglish, gullit, Souness or Roeder 5 years ?

 

 

 

Facts which dont paint a true picture. Im saying that a plan has an point, do you think that the board implented there plan in the end? Are we reaping the benefits of this plan? Was Souness part of this  long term plan?

 

So we didn't have a "plan" during the era of Dalglish, Gullit, Souness and Roeder ?

 

And you think we should have gave all of them more time to implement their "plans"

 

If we had no "plan", then all those 87 clubs we qualified for europe more than, can't have had much of a "plan" themselves, wouldn't you agree ?

 

 

 

From what i saw, after SBR, ie the decline of the old board. There didnt seem to be any plans, and the appointment of Souness underlied that fact. They showed that the appoint was reactive as opposed to proactive. You can never have a reactive approach for long term plans to be successfull. It doesnt work.

 

Again, this whole argument has started by one little monir point of a bigger picture. Yet again you are failing to address the whole point of the original post and picking off the smaller less significant aspect.

 

If you want me to blow your "top 4 stat" out the water i can do if you'd like. Upto you?

 

Its a real shame you completely disregard the fact that other clubs have these grand "plans" that you think lead to automatic success.

 

Maybe you ought to write to them or something and demand they all fall over and allow our "plan" to be "the plan".

 

And - I take it that you still think Dalglish, Gullit, Souness and Roeder should have been allowed more time to carry out their "plans"

 

BTW. Only 4 clubs have qualified more than us for the CL and europe within the last decade, and going back further, to 1992 as well. I'm waiting for your "opinion" on this, because you sure as hell won't produce a stat to disprove it.

 

 

 

Its a real shame you completely disregard the fact that other clubs have these grand "plans" that you think lead to automatic success.

 

This another one of things that you make up in your head?? Where have i said that?

 

Maybe you ought to write to them or something and demand they all fall over and allow our "plan" to be "the plan".]

 

errr.....what?

 

And - I take it that you still think Dalglish, Gullit, Souness and Roeder should have been allowed more time to carry out their "plans"

 

eh? See above comments

 

You're doing nothing but making yourself look pretty silly and desperate to be honest.

 

BTW. Only 4 clubs have qualified more than us for the CL and europe within the last decade, and going back further, to 1992 as well. I'm waiting for your "opinion" on this, because you sure as hell won't produce a stat to disprove it.

 

Ah yes, the infamous "top 4 Euro qualification" stat which you cling to so valiantly. I dont aim to disprove the stat young man, but i could quite easily put a lot of perspective on it, some much needed perspective, some perspective which kind of undermines every argument that you have that falls back on this stat.

 

 

you're backtracking.

 

My point is quite clear. You advocate giving people time but don't directly say that the club was wrong - at the time - to make a managerial change. Therefore, you are moving the goalposts to suit your "opinion"

 

The perspective that matters, is the FACT that as only 4 clubs qualified for europe more than us, they haven't had nearly as bad a "plan" as you make out. In fact, they must have had a better "plan" than most other clubs.

 

And - you actually SAID you would disprove that stat, and now say you can't.

 

Cheers for the reply, I think I've said all there is to say now.

 

 

 

Wo wo wo, are we reading the same post, have a look at your first respone to my post. It was you highlighting "There didnt seem to be a plan" .

 

Which was a minor point of a bigger argument.

 

Yes im advocating giving the manager more time but i made no reference to the old boards appointments or change you did. Get over yourself man, this is a new era, clean slate. nothing to do with the old board.

 

 

The perspective that matters, is the FACT that as only 4 clubs qualified for europe more than us, they haven't had nearly as bad a "plan" as you make out. In fact, they must have had a better "plan" than most other clubs.

 

The perspective that matters is the how that stat influences peoples perceptions of our success over the course of the decade.

 

Answer me this:

 

Team 'A' qualifies for Europe 7 times in 10 years

Team 'B'  finishes in the top 10, 4 times in 10 years.

 

Which team was more successful?  Dare you to answer that question.

 

And - you actually SAID you would disprove that stat, and now say you can't.

 

Where did i say i would DISPROVE the stat??

 

 

 

[NE5]

Rather than quote the post ....

 

I believe that this question was answered earlier, by UV, I think.

 

I concur with his reply.

 

Team A.

 

The old board and new board have absolutely nothing to do with what you are saying about stability. You are saying stability leads to success. I'm saying success leads to stability. And you can't back up your reply with a direct response to my question as to can you confidently say that those 4 managers should have been given time and so would have been successful, or do you think it was right to make a change. This is a question of a principle that you insist would work. We - myself and others - are quoting you genuine examples to prove this is not the case.

 

 

[fredbob]

Rather than quote the post ....

 

I believe that this question was answered earlier, by UV, I think.

 

I concur with his reply.

 

Team A.

 

The old board and new board have absolutely nothing to do with what you are saying about stability. You are saying stability leads to success. I'm saying success leads to stability. And you can't back up your reply with a direct response to my question as to can you confidently say that those 4 managers should have been given time and so would have been successful, or do you think it was right to make a change. This is a question of a principle that you insist would work. We - myself and others - are quoting you genuine examples to prove this is not the case.

 

 

 

Which question?

 

Im saying we were in an unstable position prior to Ashley taking over.

 

It is really down to indivduals views on what stability is.

 

I personally mean the state of the club and the direction it was going. All things which look like being addressed so far.....ie stable manager, youth setup , scouting netwrok, coaching set up all the meat with the trimmings as well.

 

Your saying the stablilty is a result of success, you're saying that the youth set up, the finance, the stable manager will all come after we achieve levels of success?

 

Im so glad you said team 'A'.....

 

Think about it...

[Dr Venkman]

from what i can see we need a creative central midfielder or two, a right winger, a centre half as good as faye, and an entirely new set of attacking options

 

the players we have for these positions at the minute are either too old, too injured, too crap, or all three, and thats just the players we NEED to replace, nevermind backup and squad strengthening

[Jamie]

I wouldn't trust Allardyce with millions to spend

[fredbob]

I wouldn't trust Allardyce with millions to spend

 

I would but i dont think id trust him to utilizes his signings to the best.

[Howaythelads]

from what i can see we need a creative central midfielder or two, a right winger, a centre half as good as faye, and an entirely new set of attacking options

the players we have for these positions at the minute are either too old, too injured, too crap, or all three, and thats just the players we NEED to replace, nevermind backup and squad strengthening

 

Eh?

 

That surely can't be right....I mean, just last season the only problems were the defenders and they've all been replaced with better players.....

[Dave]

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/3181/repostpm7.jpg

[Lotus]

from what i can see we need a creative central midfielder or two, a right winger, a centre half as good as faye, and an entirely new set of attacking options

the players we have for these positions at the minute are either too old, too injured, too crap, or all three, and thats just the players we NEED to replace, nevermind backup and squad strengthening

 

Eh?

 

That surely can't be right....I mean, just last season the only problems were the defenders and they've all been replaced with better players.....

i don't think Rozenhal nor Cacapa look like good prem defenders yet, looking at them so far i'd say we've replaced players who weren't good enough with other players who still aren't good enough.

[Guest LucasUnger]

from what i can see we need a creative central midfielder or two, a right winger, a centre half as good as faye, and an entirely new set of attacking options

the players we have for these positions at the minute are either too old, too injured, too crap, or all three, and thats just the players we NEED to replace, nevermind backup and squad strengthening

 

Eh?

 

That surely can't be right....I mean, just last season the only problems were the defenders and they've all been replaced with better players.....

i don't think Rozenhal nor Cacapa look like good prem defenders yet, looking at them so far i'd say we've replaced players who weren't good enough with other players who still aren't good enough.

well swapin bramble and ramage against rozi and cacapa??? hmmm. i'm pleased.

 

 

[Guest LucasUnger]

i think we would need at least 3 players who could come straight away in our starting 11  to have a squad to compete the top 6 atm.

 

 

[Lotus]

from what i can see we need a creative central midfielder or two, a right winger, a centre half as good as faye, and an entirely new set of attacking options

the players we have for these positions at the minute are either too old, too injured, too crap, or all three, and thats just the players we NEED to replace, nevermind backup and squad strengthening

 

Eh?

 

That surely can't be right....I mean, just last season the only problems were the defenders and they've all been replaced with better players.....

i don't think Rozenhal nor Cacapa look like good prem defenders yet, looking at them so far i'd say we've replaced players who weren't good enough with other players who still aren't good enough.

well swapin bramble and ramage against rozi and cacapa??? hmmm. i'm pleased.

 

 

They look about as good (or bad) as Bramble and Moore to me.

 

[NE5]

from what i can see we need a creative central midfielder or two, a right winger, a centre half as good as faye, and an entirely new set of attacking options

the players we have for these positions at the minute are either too old, too injured, too crap, or all three, and thats just the players we NEED to replace, nevermind backup and squad strengthening

 

Eh?

 

That surely can't be right....I mean, just last season the only problems were the defenders and they've all been replaced with better players.....

i don't think Rozenhal nor Cacapa look like good prem defenders yet, looking at them so far i'd say we've replaced players who weren't good enough with other players who still aren't good enough.

 

all the fault of the fat bastard

 

 

[fredbob]

from what i can see we need a creative central midfielder or two, a right winger, a centre half as good as faye, and an entirely new set of attacking options

the players we have for these positions at the minute are either too old, too injured, too crap, or all three, and thats just the players we NEED to replace, nevermind backup and squad strengthening

 

Eh?

 

That surely can't be right....I mean, just last season the only problems were the defenders and they've all been replaced with better players.....

i don't think Rozenhal nor Cacapa look like good prem defenders yet, looking at them so far i'd say we've replaced players who weren't good enough with other players who still aren't good enough.

 

all the fault of the fat b******

 

 

 

pssssst.......dont bite

[Dave]

from what i can see we need a creative central midfielder or two, a right winger, a centre half as good as faye, and an entirely new set of attacking options

the players we have for these positions at the minute are either too old, too injured, too crap, or all three, and thats just the players we NEED to replace, nevermind backup and squad strengthening

 

Eh?

 

That surely can't be right....I mean, just last season the only problems were the defenders and they've all been replaced with better players.....

i don't think Rozenhal nor Cacapa look like good prem defenders yet, looking at them so far i'd say we've replaced players who weren't good enough with other players who still aren't good enough.

 

all the fault of the fat bastard

 

 

 

Allardyce is trying his best you know, lost 3lb so far. Oliver told me.