Souness On Sky Now

[Decky]

"IN the end of the day"

 

??

[Guest fraser]

Of course hes not going to accept any blame. He wasnt backed by his chairman, so why should he be blamed for the team being s***? I

 

50m quid = no backing  mackems.gif

 

Buying what you want for other people isn't backing them, particularly when it's done to massage your own overinflated ego.

[NE5]

In the end of the day, the only important thing in that interview was that Souness said that him, Robson and Gullit would all contact any Newcastle managerial target and tell them how good the job is, especially now Shepherd has gone.

 

The club needs a good reference from some people now, and fair play to them if they are willing to go out of their way and do so.

 

Lets see now. Dalglish, Gullit, Robson and Souness himself were all attracted to the club. So what exactly is Souness' point here ?

 

Surely he can't be stupid enough to be attracted to an unattractive club could he ?

 

What a moron he is, but I didn't expect people to actually defend him for anything

 

 

 

All I'm saying is that it is good that despite being sacked/being unpopular/not getting the best treatment (tick as applicable), it can only be good for us that former managers are willing to put in a good word for us if individuals are undecided.

 

I agree with that. I'd rather Souness was prepared to accept a rather large chunk of blame himself for the mess he made though.

 

 

 

In the end of the day, thats history. We may have been shaped by the past, but looking back at what has happenned over the years isn't going to shape us for the future.

 

Look. Its nothing to do with looking back. Souness is unable to take any blame for the complete mess he made of the job.

 

He lied about Craig Bellamy, and he has a history of being involved in these sort of confronations, and always blames the other guy.

 

If you want to look forward, I will say that results prove the last board did some major things quite well, and the way forward is to carry on doing these things rather just instantly dismiss everything on account of it being done by a fat bastard and his mate who went to a brothel and called us all mugs for buying 40 quid shirts.

 

I mean, who the hell pays 40 quid for a shirt ?

 

 

[NE5]

Of course hes not going to accept any blame. He wasnt backed by his chairman, so why should he be blamed for the team being s***? I

 

50m quid = no backing  mackems.gif

 

Buying what you want for other people isn't backing them, particularly when it's done to massage your own overinflated ego.

 

only a mug or a liar would put up with being treated like that, he doesn't need the money, and as i said, could have kicked up a stink and got himself sacked for it if he was so principled.

 

50m quid is 50m quid. End of. And nobody told him to sell Bellamy and Robert for a total of 4m quid. No mention of Boumsong or Faye, I see.

 

 

[Guest fraser]

Of course hes not going to accept any blame. He wasnt backed by his chairman, so why should he be blamed for the team being s***? I

 

50m quid = no backing  mackems.gif

 

Buying what you want for other people isn't backing them, particularly when it's done to massage your own overinflated ego.

 

only a mug or a liar would put up with being treated like that, he doesn't need the money, and as i said, could have kicked up a stink and got himself sacked for it if he was so principled.

 

50m quid is 50m quid. End of. And nobody told him to sell Bellamy and Robert for a total of 4m quid. No mention of Boumsong or Faye, I see.

 

 

 

At the end of the day FS (or FFS, whichever you prefer) took over as Chairman of an improving club in a climate that was God-given to further improve it. He didn't do that; he was inept in his recruitment (including that of Souness, the man you so deride for lacking the qualities FS recruited him for). The only man who was a success was dismissed by FS in a particularly craven and disreputable way. I will forever shudder at the memory of his pose in the programme; it spoke a thousand words. He was a chairman of a well supported club in the Sky era that had been brought back from the brink by two men of vision. And he fucked it up.

[Baggio]

I agree Fraser, it's starting to look like Souness wasn't backed that much at all when you take out the Owen and Luque deals, lets not forget the money spent on Boumsong and Faye was generated by the sale of Woodgate, a player that Real Madrid had a bid accepted for without Sir Bobby's knowledge...

[Mick]

 

only a mug or a liar would put up with being treated like that, he doesn't need the money, and as i said, could have kicked up a stink and got himself sacked for it if he was so principled.

 

50m quid is 50m quid. End of. And nobody told him to sell Bellamy and Robert for a total of 4m quid. No mention of Boumsong or Faye, I see.

 

 

 

In your post above you mention about his history of being involved in these sort of confrontations (Bellamy v Souness) and in this one you say nobody told him to sell Bellamy and Robert.  Can you see a connection between the two things you've mentioned and maybe that he was brought in to get rid of them?  After all, Sir Bobby was sacked for the way the players were going on and Souness had a history of falling out with players and getting rid of them.

[fredbob]

In the end of the day, the only important thing in that interview was that Souness said that him, Robson and Gullit would all contact any Newcastle managerial target and tell them how good the job is, especially now Shepherd has gone.

 

The club needs a good reference from some people now, and fair play to them if they are willing to go out of their way and do so.

 

Lets see now. Dalglish, Gullit, Robson and Souness himself were all attracted to the club. So what exactly is Souness' point here ?

 

Surely he can't be stupid enough to be attracted to an unattractive club could he ?

 

What a moron he is, but I didn't expect people to actually defend him for anything

 

 

 

All I'm saying is that it is good that despite being sacked/being unpopular/not getting the best treatment (tick as applicable), it can only be good for us that former managers are willing to put in a good word for us if individuals are undecided.

 

I agree with that. I'd rather Souness was prepared to accept a rather large chunk of blame himself for the mess he made though.

 

 

 

In the end of the day, thats history. We may have been shaped by the past, but looking back at what has happenned over the years isn't going to shape us for the future.

 

Look. Its nothing to do with looking back. Souness is unable to take any blame for the complete mess he made of the job.

 

He lied about Craig Bellamy, and he has a history of being involved in these sort of confronations, and always blames the other guy.

 

If you want to look forward, I will say that results prove the last board did some major things quite well, and the way forward is to carry on doing these things rather just instantly dismiss everything on account of it being done by a fat b****** and his mate who went to a brothel and called us all mugs for buying 40 quid shirts.

 

I mean, who the hell pays 40 quid for a shirt ?

 

 

 

How much is Shepherd responsible for what happened with SBR andSouness then?

[NE5]

Of course hes not going to accept any blame. He wasnt backed by his chairman, so why should he be blamed for the team being s***? I

 

50m quid = no backing  mackems.gif

 

Buying what you want for other people isn't backing them, particularly when it's done to massage your own overinflated ego.

 

only a mug or a liar would put up with being treated like that, he doesn't need the money, and as i said, could have kicked up a stink and got himself sacked for it if he was so principled.

 

50m quid is 50m quid. End of. And nobody told him to sell Bellamy and Robert for a total of 4m quid. No mention of Boumsong or Faye, I see.

 

 

 

At the end of the day FS (or FFS, whichever you prefer) took over as Chairman of an improving club in a climate that was God-given to further improve it. He didn't do that; he was inept in his recruitment (including that of Souness, the man you so deride for lacking the qualities FS recruited him for). The only man who was a success was dismissed by FS in a particularly craven and disreputable way. I will forever shudder at the memory of his pose in the programme; it spoke a thousand words. He was a chairman of a well supported club in the Sky era that had been brought back from the brink by two men of vision. And he fucked it up.

 

this has been said before. If you seriously think that one man was solely responsible for the appointment of a shit manager .......

 

And the major shareholders with millions of pounds of shares in the club, took no part in it........

 

Shame people like you NEVER mention that they weren't "inept" when playing in the Champions League, Europe more than every club bar 4, and 2 FA Cup Finals.

 

Also, it has been said before that "the 2 men of vision" you have in mind being Keegan and Sir John Hall. Well, it wasn't Sir John Halls idea to appoint Keegan, it was Hall Jnr, Shepherd and Fletcher. They had to persuade him, and in the end outvoted him. This is in Keegans book. 

 

It doesn't suit your "opinion" to accept that all of the managers were selected by virtue of a board majority though does it ?

 

 

[thomas]

Jesus fucking wept

[Dr Venkman]

Of course hes not going to accept any blame. He wasnt backed by his chairman, so why should he be blamed for the team being s***? I

 

50m quid = no backing  mackems.gif

 

Buying what you want for other people isn't backing them, particularly when it's done to massage your own overinflated ego.

 

only a mug or a liar would put up with being treated like that, he doesn't need the money, and as i said, could have kicked up a stink and got himself sacked for it if he was so principled.

 

50m quid is 50m quid. End of. And nobody told him to sell Bellamy and Robert for a total of 4m quid. No mention of Boumsong or Faye, I see.

 

 

 

At the end of the day FS (or FFS, whichever you prefer) took over as Chairman of an improving club in a climate that was God-given to further improve it. He didn't do that; he was inept in his recruitment (including that of Souness, the man you so deride for lacking the qualities FS recruited him for). The only man who was a success was dismissed by FS in a particularly craven and disreputable way. I will forever shudder at the memory of his pose in the programme; it spoke a thousand words. He was a chairman of a well supported club in the Sky era that had been brought back from the brink by two men of vision. And he f***** it up.

 

this has been said before. If you seriously think that one man was solely responsible for the appointment of a s*** manager .......

 

And the major shareholders with millions of pounds of shares in the club, took no part in it........

 

Shame people like you NEVER mention that they weren't "inept" when playing in the Champions League, Europe more than every club bar 4, and 2 FA Cup Finals.

 

Also, it has been said before that "the 2 men of vision" you have in mind being Keegan and Sir John Hall. Well, it wasn't Sir John Halls idea to appoint Keegan, it was Hall Jnr, Shepherd and Fletcher. They had to persuade him, and in the end outvoted him. This is in Keegans book. 

 

It doesn't suit your "opinion" to accept that all of the managers were selected by virtue of a board majority though does it ?

 

 

 

whats the crack then?

 

is two managers (one loved, one hated) independently coming out and saying the chairman signed or sold whoever he wanted not even slightly damning?

 

[madras]

the way robson tells it the successes were his buys,the flops were someone elses.

 

who'd a thought it. and if true none of them had the bottle to stand up (for this reason i find it hard to believe)

[Cajun]

Was told ages ago (probably over a year ago) that Souness didn't want Luque and the "mate said we should buy him" thing was a load of shite.

 

Graeme Souness is many things, mostly unprintable on here, but one thing he isn't, is anybody's yes man

 

 

Very very good source told me, I have more reason the believe him than what someone assumes what Souness is like.

 

is that so ?

 

 

 

Yep.

[Baggio]

Which players did Robson say were Shepherd buys, Madras?

[Guest fraser]

Of course hes not going to accept any blame. He wasnt backed by his chairman, so why should he be blamed for the team being s***? I

 

50m quid = no backing  mackems.gif

 

Buying what you want for other people isn't backing them, particularly when it's done to massage your own overinflated ego.

 

only a mug or a liar would put up with being treated like that, he doesn't need the money, and as i said, could have kicked up a stink and got himself sacked for it if he was so principled.

 

50m quid is 50m quid. End of. And nobody told him to sell Bellamy and Robert for a total of 4m quid. No mention of Boumsong or Faye, I see.

 

 

 

At the end of the day FS (or FFS, whichever you prefer) took over as Chairman of an improving club in a climate that was God-given to further improve it. He didn't do that; he was inept in his recruitment (including that of Souness, the man you so deride for lacking the qualities FS recruited him for). The only man who was a success was dismissed by FS in a particularly craven and disreputable way. I will forever shudder at the memory of his pose in the programme; it spoke a thousand words. He was a chairman of a well supported club in the Sky era that had been brought back from the brink by two men of vision. And he f***** it up.

 

this has been said before. If you seriously think that one man was solely responsible for the appointment of a s*** manager .......

 

And the major shareholders with millions of pounds of shares in the club, took no part in it........

 

Shame people like you NEVER mention that they weren't "inept" when playing in the Champions League, Europe more than every club bar 4, and 2 FA Cup Finals.

 

Also, it has been said before that "the 2 men of vision" you have in mind being Keegan and Sir John Hall. Well, it wasn't Sir John Halls idea to appoint Keegan, it was Hall Jnr, Shepherd and Fletcher. They had to persuade him, and in the end outvoted him. This is in Keegans book. 

 

It doesn't suit your "opinion" to accept that all of the managers were selected by virtue of a board majority though does it ?

 

 

 

Well look, you have to shore up your argument with evidence that is uncontrovertible purely on the basis that it's some sort of inside information. How do you know how the voting went and who voted in which particular way?

 

The facts that we can all know speak for themselves. The rest of us deal only in those facts.

 

Of course chairmen make recommendations to boards. As a major shareholder himself FS' opinion would have been compelling; surely you recognise this?

 

I don't mention European competition and cup finals because a large part of my argument (see above) is predicated upon the fact that such successes were unavoidable for our club, given the nature  of modern football.

 

What about the sacking of SBR? Do you accept this was a craven act? That is the quality of your man and he is your man.

[Cronky]

Souness wasn't a great choice as manager, but what he's said here is constructive and sensible. The bit about Shepherd interfering in transfer choices isn't exactly news, but hopefully it's a useful warning to Ashley.

 

 

[fredbob]

Of course hes not going to accept any blame. He wasnt backed by his chairman, so why should he be blamed for the team being s***? I

 

50m quid = no backing  mackems.gif

 

Buying what you want for other people isn't backing them, particularly when it's done to massage your own overinflated ego.

 

only a mug or a liar would put up with being treated like that, he doesn't need the money, and as i said, could have kicked up a stink and got himself sacked for it if he was so principled.

 

50m quid is 50m quid. End of. And nobody told him to sell Bellamy and Robert for a total of 4m quid. No mention of Boumsong or Faye, I see.

 

 

 

At the end of the day FS (or FFS, whichever you prefer) took over as Chairman of an improving club in a climate that was God-given to further improve it. He didn't do that; he was inept in his recruitment (including that of Souness, the man you so deride for lacking the qualities FS recruited him for). The only man who was a success was dismissed by FS in a particularly craven and disreputable way. I will forever shudder at the memory of his pose in the programme; it spoke a thousand words. He was a chairman of a well supported club in the Sky era that had been brought back from the brink by two men of vision. And he f***** it up.

 

this has been said before. If you seriously think that one man was solely responsible for the appointment of a s*** manager .......

 

And the major shareholders with millions of pounds of shares in the club, took no part in it........

 

Shame people like you NEVER mention that they weren't "inept" when playing in the Champions League, Europe more than every club bar 4, and 2 FA Cup Finals.

 

Also, it has been said before that "the 2 men of vision" you have in mind being Keegan and Sir John Hall. Well, it wasn't Sir John Halls idea to appoint Keegan, it was Hall Jnr, Shepherd and Fletcher. They had to persuade him, and in the end outvoted him. This is in Keegans book. 

 

It doesn't suit your "opinion" to accept that all of the managers were selected by virtue of a board majority though does it ?

 

 

 

I see you've fine tuned your "most time in europe stat". So you can teach an old dog new tricks!  

[NE5]

Of course hes not going to accept any blame. He wasnt backed by his chairman, so why should he be blamed for the team being s***? I

 

50m quid = no backing  mackems.gif

 

Buying what you want for other people isn't backing them, particularly when it's done to massage your own overinflated ego.

 

only a mug or a liar would put up with being treated like that, he doesn't need the money, and as i said, could have kicked up a stink and got himself sacked for it if he was so principled.

 

50m quid is 50m quid. End of. And nobody told him to sell Bellamy and Robert for a total of 4m quid. No mention of Boumsong or Faye, I see.

 

 

 

At the end of the day FS (or FFS, whichever you prefer) took over as Chairman of an improving club in a climate that was God-given to further improve it. He didn't do that; he was inept in his recruitment (including that of Souness, the man you so deride for lacking the qualities FS recruited him for). The only man who was a success was dismissed by FS in a particularly craven and disreputable way. I will forever shudder at the memory of his pose in the programme; it spoke a thousand words. He was a chairman of a well supported club in the Sky era that had been brought back from the brink by two men of vision. And he f***** it up.

 

this has been said before. If you seriously think that one man was solely responsible for the appointment of a s*** manager .......

 

And the major shareholders with millions of pounds of shares in the club, took no part in it........

 

Shame people like you NEVER mention that they weren't "inept" when playing in the Champions League, Europe more than every club bar 4, and 2 FA Cup Finals.

 

Also, it has been said before that "the 2 men of vision" you have in mind being Keegan and Sir John Hall. Well, it wasn't Sir John Halls idea to appoint Keegan, it was Hall Jnr, Shepherd and Fletcher. They had to persuade him, and in the end outvoted him. This is in Keegans book. 

 

It doesn't suit your "opinion" to accept that all of the managers were selected by virtue of a board majority though does it ?

 

 

 

Well look, you have to shore up your argument with evidence that is uncontrovertible purely on the basis that it's some sort of inside information. How do you know how the voting went and who voted in which particular way?

 

The facts that we can all know speak for themselves. The rest of us deal only in those facts.

 

Of course chairmen make recommendations to boards. As a major shareholder himself FS' opinion would have been compelling; surely you recognise this?

 

I don't mention European competition and cup finals because a large part of my argument (see above) is predicated upon the fact that such successes were unavoidable for our club, given the nature  of modern football.

 

What about the sacking of SBR? Do you accept this was a craven act? That is the quality of your man and he is your man.

 

What ? Are you saying that we had a God given right to qualify for the Champs League and play in 2 Cup Finals to the extent you can't give credit to anyone ?

 

What about the sacking of SBR ? He should have been sacked earlier. And ........ nobody is "my man". I just recognise the old board did some things quite well. Nobody qualifies more for europe more than everybody but 4 clubs unless they are doing something right.

 

Never ceases to make me smile, the amount of people who think our last decade has been a "disaster", despite having it patiently explained to them how far forward we moved as a club under the Halls and Shepherd. Amazing.

 

 

[NE5]

Of course hes not going to accept any blame. He wasnt backed by his chairman, so why should he be blamed for the team being s***? I

 

50m quid = no backing  mackems.gif

 

Buying what you want for other people isn't backing them, particularly when it's done to massage your own overinflated ego.

 

only a mug or a liar would put up with being treated like that, he doesn't need the money, and as i said, could have kicked up a stink and got himself sacked for it if he was so principled.

 

50m quid is 50m quid. End of. And nobody told him to sell Bellamy and Robert for a total of 4m quid. No mention of Boumsong or Faye, I see.

 

 

 

At the end of the day FS (or FFS, whichever you prefer) took over as Chairman of an improving club in a climate that was God-given to further improve it. He didn't do that; he was inept in his recruitment (including that of Souness, the man you so deride for lacking the qualities FS recruited him for). The only man who was a success was dismissed by FS in a particularly craven and disreputable way. I will forever shudder at the memory of his pose in the programme; it spoke a thousand words. He was a chairman of a well supported club in the Sky era that had been brought back from the brink by two men of vision. And he f***** it up.

 

this has been said before. If you seriously think that one man was solely responsible for the appointment of a s*** manager .......

 

And the major shareholders with millions of pounds of shares in the club, took no part in it........

 

Shame people like you NEVER mention that they weren't "inept" when playing in the Champions League, Europe more than every club bar 4, and 2 FA Cup Finals.

 

Also, it has been said before that "the 2 men of vision" you have in mind being Keegan and Sir John Hall. Well, it wasn't Sir John Halls idea to appoint Keegan, it was Hall Jnr, Shepherd and Fletcher. They had to persuade him, and in the end outvoted him. This is in Keegans book. 

 

It doesn't suit your "opinion" to accept that all of the managers were selected by virtue of a board majority though does it ?

 

 

 

I see you've fine tuned your "most time in europe stat". So you can teach an old dog new tricks!  

 

no its exactly the same, and I'm still waiting for you to "blow it out of the water"

 

 

[NE5]

Souness wasn't a great choice as manager, but what he's said here is constructive and sensible. The bit about Shepherd interfering in transfer choices isn't exactly news, but hopefully it's a useful warning to Ashley.

 

 

Astonishing that people are now defending Souness

 

 

[fredbob]

Of course hes not going to accept any blame. He wasnt backed by his chairman, so why should he be blamed for the team being s***? I

 

50m quid = no backing  mackems.gif

 

Buying what you want for other people isn't backing them, particularly when it's done to massage your own overinflated ego.

 

only a mug or a liar would put up with being treated like that, he doesn't need the money, and as i said, could have kicked up a stink and got himself sacked for it if he was so principled.

 

50m quid is 50m quid. End of. And nobody told him to sell Bellamy and Robert for a total of 4m quid. No mention of Boumsong or Faye, I see.

 

 

 

At the end of the day FS (or FFS, whichever you prefer) took over as Chairman of an improving club in a climate that was God-given to further improve it. He didn't do that; he was inept in his recruitment (including that of Souness, the man you so deride for lacking the qualities FS recruited him for). The only man who was a success was dismissed by FS in a particularly craven and disreputable way. I will forever shudder at the memory of his pose in the programme; it spoke a thousand words. He was a chairman of a well supported club in the Sky era that had been brought back from the brink by two men of vision. And he f***** it up.

 

this has been said before. If you seriously think that one man was solely responsible for the appointment of a s*** manager .......

 

And the major shareholders with millions of pounds of shares in the club, took no part in it........

 

Shame people like you NEVER mention that they weren't "inept" when playing in the Champions League, Europe more than every club bar 4, and 2 FA Cup Finals.

 

Also, it has been said before that "the 2 men of vision" you have in mind being Keegan and Sir John Hall. Well, it wasn't Sir John Halls idea to appoint Keegan, it was Hall Jnr, Shepherd and Fletcher. They had to persuade him, and in the end outvoted him. This is in Keegans book. 

 

It doesn't suit your "opinion" to accept that all of the managers were selected by virtue of a board majority though does it ?

 

 

 

Well look, you have to shore up your argument with evidence that is uncontrovertible purely on the basis that it's some sort of inside information. How do you know how the voting went and who voted in which particular way?

 

The facts that we can all know speak for themselves. The rest of us deal only in those facts.

 

Of course chairmen make recommendations to boards. As a major shareholder himself FS' opinion would have been compelling; surely you recognise this?

 

I don't mention European competition and cup finals because a large part of my argument (see above) is predicated upon the fact that such successes were unavoidable for our club, given the nature  of modern football.

 

What about the sacking of SBR? Do you accept this was a craven act? That is the quality of your man and he is your man.

 

What ? Are you saying that we had a God given right to qualify for the Champs League and play in 2 Cup Finals to the extent you can't give credit to anyone ?

 

What about the sacking of SBR ? He should have been sacked earlier. And ........ nobody is "my man". I just recognise the old board did some things quite well. Nobody qualifies more for europe more than everybody but 4 clubs unless they are doing something right.

 

Never ceases to make me smile, the amount of people who think our last decade has been a "disaster", despite having it patiently explained to them how far forward we moved as a club under the Halls and Shepherd. Amazing.

 

 

 

Maybe not! 

[Thespence]

Also, it has been said before that "the 2 men of vision" you have in mind being Keegan and Sir John Hall. Well, it wasn't Sir John Halls idea to appoint Keegan, it was Hall Jnr, Shepherd and Fletcher. They had to persuade him, and in the end outvoted him. This is in Keegans book

 

Did it say in Keegans book how he found this out?

[Guest fraser]

Of course hes not going to accept any blame. He wasnt backed by his chairman, so why should he be blamed for the team being s***? I

 

50m quid = no backing  mackems.gif

 

Buying what you want for other people isn't backing them, particularly when it's done to massage your own overinflated ego.

 

only a mug or a liar would put up with being treated like that, he doesn't need the money, and as i said, could have kicked up a stink and got himself sacked for it if he was so principled.

 

50m quid is 50m quid. End of. And nobody told him to sell Bellamy and Robert for a total of 4m quid. No mention of Boumsong or Faye, I see.

 

 

 

At the end of the day FS (or FFS, whichever you prefer) took over as Chairman of an improving club in a climate that was God-given to further improve it. He didn't do that; he was inept in his recruitment (including that of Souness, the man you so deride for lacking the qualities FS recruited him for). The only man who was a success was dismissed by FS in a particularly craven and disreputable way. I will forever shudder at the memory of his pose in the programme; it spoke a thousand words. He was a chairman of a well supported club in the Sky era that had been brought back from the brink by two men of vision. And he f***** it up.

 

this has been said before. If you seriously think that one man was solely responsible for the appointment of a s*** manager .......

 

And the major shareholders with millions of pounds of shares in the club, took no part in it........

 

Shame people like you NEVER mention that they weren't "inept" when playing in the Champions League, Europe more than every club bar 4, and 2 FA Cup Finals.

 

Also, it has been said before that "the 2 men of vision" you have in mind being Keegan and Sir John Hall. Well, it wasn't Sir John Halls idea to appoint Keegan, it was Hall Jnr, Shepherd and Fletcher. They had to persuade him, and in the end outvoted him. This is in Keegans book. 

 

It doesn't suit your "opinion" to accept that all of the managers were selected by virtue of a board majority though does it ?

 

 

 

Well look, you have to shore up your argument with evidence that is uncontrovertible purely on the basis that it's some sort of inside information. How do you know how the voting went and who voted in which particular way?

 

The facts that we can all know speak for themselves. The rest of us deal only in those facts.

 

Of course chairmen make recommendations to boards. As a major shareholder himself FS' opinion would have been compelling; surely you recognise this?

 

I don't mention European competition and cup finals because a large part of my argument (see above) is predicated upon the fact that such successes were unavoidable for our club, given the nature  of modern football.

 

What about the sacking of SBR? Do you accept this was a craven act? That is the quality of your man and he is your man.

 

What ? Are you saying that we had a God given right to qualify for the Champs League and play in 2 Cup Finals to the extent you can't give credit to anyone ?

 

What about the sacking of SBR ? He should have been sacked earlier. And ........ nobody is "my man". I just recognise the old board did some things quite well. Nobody qualifies more for europe more than everybody but 4 clubs unless they are doing something right.

 

Never ceases to make me smile, the amount of people who think our last decade has been a "disaster", despite having it patiently explained to them how far forward we moved as a club under the Halls and Shepherd. Amazing.

 

 

 

Don't prop up your failing argument by reference to the Halls. I place Douglas and Freddy in the same category. SJH is another matter entirely.

 

When did FS take over?

 

When was he sacked?

 

How did he take the club from Champions League to Premiership also-rans in that time?

[bodson]

If Souness is appointed Ill stop watching the games.

[fredbob]

Souness wasn't a great choice as manager, but what he's said here is constructive and sensible. The bit about Shepherd interfering in transfer choices isn't exactly news, but hopefully it's a useful warning to Ashley.

 

 

Astonishing that people are now defending Souness

 

 

 

Nobodies defending Souness, no ones saying, crikey, maybe he could of done a good job. People are well aware of his disruptive nature and poor managment skills but the fact that him as well as SBR have both come out and said similar things about the chairmen suggest that something may not have been all good at the club.

 

How can you not acknowlede that, how many managers can thrive with that much interfering??