Souness On Sky Now

[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!  

 

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

 

 

 

In your world it means prove it wrong, in my world (reality) it means puting some well needed perspective on it, perspective which stops it completely being used in the context that you use.

 

Anyway, to summarize...

 

[NE5]

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?

 

I've printed all this before mate, its a fair while ago though .......

 

He actually slates Sir John for going back on his word, which led to the walkout after the Swindon game, and other things.

 

Page 205

 

"Neither George Forbes nor Peter Mallinger knew that on monday 3 February 1992 I was being asked to take over as Newcastle manager. When it came to the crunch, it was Fletcher, Shepherd and Douglass Hall who wanted me to replace Ossie Ardiles."

 

further down

 

"Sir john Hall was very agitated and at that first meeting I was not at all impressed with him. It was obvious that he wasn't comfortable with my proposed appointment. I could understand why, because he had put his name to an article by Bob Cass in the Mail on Sunday three days earlier that Ossies' job was safe, and I knew that his family had built up a strong relationship with Ossies. I was also concerned that neither Mallinger nor Forbes knew that I was present. Whatever Sir John thought about the situation, he was definitely in the minority. The other three lad the cards on the table, the club was on its way down and they had to do something very quickly if they were going to halt the decline. It seemed that Sir John was being given no choice.

 

He seemed anxious to get away - his original reason for coming down to London with his wife Lady Mae was to buy some trees in kew Gardens. But I would not let him slip away until I knew how much would be available for players. He told me that there would be 1 million straight away and a further million if it was required. "

 

He later goes onto explain about how these promises were broken by SJH, which led to his walkout after the Swindon game.

 

 

[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"

 

 

 

In your world it means prove it wrong, in my world (reality) it means puting some well needed perspective on it, perspective which stops it completely being used in the context that you use.

 

Anyway, to summarize...

 

 

no, I'm sorry. But in the real world, it means you would disprove it. A fact is a fact, and quite simply, you can't disprove it.

 

Cheers

 

 

[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.

 

 

 

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?

 

to pinch an idea from Chez Given

 

SJH "hows it going then Fred"

 

FS "OK johnny, i want to change the manager though"

 

SJH "ok"

 

FS "do you have any ideas then "

 

SJH "nah just go along and do what you want Freddie son"

 

FS "but don't you want to know whats going on and talk about who we all need to get in ? What about the money you've got tied up in the club "

 

SJH "oh, you mean all those millions ? Don't worry about it Freddie, just go and appoint who you want man"

 

Hilarious, if you really believe it like

 

 

 

[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.

 

 

 

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?

 

to pinch an idea from Chez Given

 

SJH "hows it going then Fred"

 

FS "OK johnny, i want to change the manager though"

 

SJH "ok"

 

FS "do you have any ideas then "

 

SJH "nah just go along and do what you want Freddie son"

 

FS "but don't you want to know whats going on and talk about who we all need to get in ? What about the money you've got tied up in the club "

 

SJH "oh, you mean all those millions ? Don't worry about it Freddie, just go and appoint who you want man"

 

Hilarious, if you really believe it like

 

 

 

 

This FS character sounds like a nice, well thought out chap!

[Mick]

 

to pinch an idea from Chez Given

 

SJH "hows it going then Fred"

 

FS "OK johnny, i want to change the manager though"

 

SJH "ok"

 

FS "do you have any ideas then "

 

SJH "nah just go along and do what you want Freddie son"

 

FS "but don't you want to know whats going on and talk about who we all need to get in ? What about the money you've got tied up in the club "

 

SJH "oh, you mean all those millions ? Don't worry about it Freddie, just go and appoint who you want man"

 

Hilarious, if you really believe it like

 

 

 

 

Sir John is quoted as supporting Shepherd's decision to sack Bobby.  That suggests that he didn’t get involved in club decisions at that time, Shepherd has never challenged that either.

 

Would he get involved with hiring but not firing?

[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?

 

to pinch an idea from Chez Given

 

SJH "hows it going then Fred"

 

FS "OK johnny, i want to change the manager though"

 

SJH "ok"

 

FS "do you have any ideas then "

 

SJH "nah just go along and do what you want Freddie son"

 

FS "but don't you want to know whats going on and talk about who we all need to get in ? What about the money you've got tied up in the club "

 

SJH "oh, you mean all those millions ? Don't worry about it Freddie, just go and appoint who you want man"

 

Hilarious, if you really believe it like

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not Chez Given.

 

So, your answer is?

[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?

 

to pinch an idea from Chez Given

 

SJH "hows it going then Fred"

 

FS "OK johnny, i want to change the manager though"

 

SJH "ok"

 

FS "do you have any ideas then "

 

SJH "nah just go along and do what you want Freddie son"

 

FS "but don't you want to know whats going on and talk about who we all need to get in ? What about the money you've got tied up in the club "

 

SJH "oh, you mean all those millions ? Don't worry about it Freddie, just go and appoint who you want man"

 

Hilarious, if you really believe it like

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not Chez Given.

 

So, your answer is?

 

Time's up.

 

Your answer is that we had a 'Yes-man' at the helm who can take no credit for any right decision and a board that must take collective responsibility for all of the wrong decisions that bring us to where we are.

 

Phew! At least we agree on somehting.

[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.

 

 

 

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?

 

to pinch an idea from Chez Given

 

SJH "hows it going then Fred"

 

FS "OK johnny, i want to change the manager though"

 

SJH "ok"

 

FS "do you have any ideas then "

 

SJH "nah just go along and do what you want Freddie son"

 

FS "but don't you want to know whats going on and talk about who we all need to get in ? What about the money you've got tied up in the club "

 

SJH "oh, you mean all those millions ? Don't worry about it Freddie, just go and appoint who you want man"

 

Hilarious, if you really believe it like

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not Chez Given.

 

So, your answer is?

 

Time's up.

 

Your answer is that we had a 'Yes-man' at the helm who can take no credit for any right decision and a board that must take collective responsibility for all of the wrong decisions that bring us to where we are.

 

Phew! At least we agree on somehting.

 

we don't agree on anything and I'm quite happy with that

 

 

[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?

 

to pinch an idea from Chez Given

 

SJH "hows it going then Fred"

 

FS "OK johnny, i want to change the manager though"

 

SJH "ok"

 

FS "do you have any ideas then "

 

SJH "nah just go along and do what you want Freddie son"

 

FS "but don't you want to know whats going on and talk about who we all need to get in ? What about the money you've got tied up in the club "

 

SJH "oh, you mean all those millions ? Don't worry about it Freddie, just go and appoint who you want man"

 

Hilarious, if you really believe it like

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not Chez Given.

 

So, your answer is?

 

Time's up.

 

Your answer is that we had a 'Yes-man' at the helm who can take no credit for any right decision and a board that must take collective responsibility for all of the wrong decisions that bring us to where we are.

 

Phew! At least we agree on somehting.

 

we don't agree on anything and I'm quite happy with that

 

 

 

We must agree on at least one thing.

 

Don't take this debate too seriously to forget that for goodness sake!

[merlin]

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?

 

I've printed all this before mate, its a fair while ago though .......

 

He actually slates Sir John for going back on his word, which led to the walkout after the Swindon game, and other things.

 

Page 205

 

"Neither George Forbes nor Peter Mallinger knew that on monday 3 February 1992 I was being asked to take over as Newcastle manager. When it came to the crunch, it was Fletcher, Shepherd and Douglass Hall who wanted me to replace Ossie Ardiles."

 

further down

 

"Sir john Hall was very agitated and at that first meeting I was not at all impressed with him. It was obvious that he wasn't comfortable with my proposed appointment. I could understand why, because he had put his name to an article by Bob Cass in the Mail on Sunday three days earlier that Ossies' job was safe, and I knew that his family had built up a strong relationship with Ossies. I was also concerned that neither Mallinger nor Forbes knew that I was present. Whatever Sir John thought about the situation, he was definitely in the minority. The other three lad the cards on the table, the club was on its way down and they had to do something very quickly if they were going to halt the decline. It seemed that Sir John was being given no choice.

 

He seemed anxious to get away - his original reason for coming down to London with his wife Lady Mae was to buy some trees in kew Gardens. But I would not let him slip away until I knew how much would be available for players. He told me that there would be 1 million straight away and a further million if it was required. "

 

He later goes onto explain about how these promises were broken by SJH, which led to his walkout after the Swindon game.

 

 

 

You are wrong - I KNOW what happened about this ; SJH and his wife had to personally lend money to the club to buy Kilcline ; the Bank wanted to take that money against the club's overdraft & debts, so SJH stopped the money going in UNTIL he had assurances from the Bank that they wouldn't touch it...

 

I happened to see SJH on the day this arose, and he told me about it - and this was at least a week before KK walked after Swindon because we were due to play Port Vale away that Saturday - SJH was convinced we were going down, but I thought we would stay up if we beat PV, which we did with a goal from Steve Watson...

 

OK, there WAS a hold-up over the money, but KK got it in the end - and still would have done if he hadn't walked - the Bank were to blame, not SJH, but KK took the view that this was not his problem....

[thomas]

come back graeme

 

edit: wahey! it stopped the bickering

[Elma]

"The biggest problem I had at the time was the Chairman, they're in it for 5 minutes and think they can make football decisions."

 

Just said we're fantastic as well, deserve better than what we've got. But that the journos and ex-employees of the club don't help us.

 

Somehow thinks he never got full support though from Shepherd. 

 

Also says he'd take the job again, "with a different Chairman."

 

Wanted Anelka and Boa Morte, told they weren't for sale, has just said Shepherd bought Luque not him and that basically Owen wasn't his choice as well.

 

long been suspected.

 

I heard at the time that Luque was nothing to do with Souness. I posted it on here in fact and if I could be arsed to trawl through my old posts I would stick the link up. I believe him completely...Shepherd was the true cancer of the club. In saying that I wouldn't touch Souness with a barge-pole now. His football was a crap as Allardyce's and that could be seen by the immediate impact Roeder and Shearer had when they took over.

[sicsfingeredmong]

"The biggest problem I had at the time was the Chairman, they're in it for 5 minutes and think they can make football decisions."

Just said we're fantastic as well, deserve better than what we've got. But that the journos and ex-employees of the club don't help us.

 

Somehow thinks he never got full support though from Shepherd. 

 

Also says he'd take the job again, "with a different Chairman."

 

Wanted Anelka and Boa Morte, told they weren't for sale, has just said Shepherd bought Luque not him and that basically Owen wasn't his choice as well.

 

This incompetant was backed to the tune of nearly 50m over two transfer windows in a team revamp, and had the chairman's support when Robert and Bellamy - two players who played their part in transforming the team post 01 - had to go because both irrepairably damaged his ego.

 

Yet the same Scottish prick has been in this caper for nearly a generation - not five minutes if i'm to borrow the useless shithead's quote, yet he removed - with the chairman's backing mind you - two of our most influential players for reasons unrelated to football, because they inflicted dents upon his fragile yet sizeable ego.

 

It appeared that in exchange for exclusives/interviews that Souness had Oliver's unwavering support right up to the Wigan game, despite that result being on the cards for quite for some time in accordance to the football & negative team mindset on display. Oliver's a shitstirrer, no doubt about that...... but Souness milks the media machine for what it's worth as well, and in relation to Souness' quip about journos', and i assume he's referring to a certain figure in the local press, not helping the club it's takes two to tango. Souness and Oliver's relationship, as hinted above, was a symbiotic one and for a time it was beneficial to both parties so for Souness to cry foul in this specific instance stinks of sour grapes.

 

He has no f'''king right to claim victims' status here imo, but then again i wouldn't expect less from somebody - especially firing off the opening salvo here - who once substituted the team's best player out on the park for reasons unpertaining to football. This is Souness' specialty: launching salvos & pressing peoples' buttons whilst playing the victims' card.

 

TBH i keenly await Shepherd's aimed response at the gutless prick.

 

 

[sicsfingeredmong]

"Galatasaray, Glasgow Rangers, Liverpool and Benfica are all bigger clubs than Newcastle..."

 

And for a minute there, I was beginning to feel ever so slightly empathetic with the man. But then he had to go and say that...

 

Do you not think he was right though? It wasnt if he bunged Torino, Blackburn & Southampton above us.

 

Oh I'm not sure I could actually be arsed to argue the point, tbh...mainly because deep down I think I realise he's right. Still hurts like f*** to have that reality rubbed in your face though. Especially at a time like this.

 

It wasn't good TV watching the club you support getting talked down.

 

 

Schadenfreude is as much a part of the sport as free kicks and dodgy penalties though.

 

Talking of Schadenfreude, Souey did say " people who are professional agitators on the outside of the club, ex-employees of the club and journalists, seem to take great pleasure in causing the club a problem"

 

Aye, I didn't see the interview myself, but when I read that on here I instantly thought how deeply ironic that statement was...having just stuck the boot in himself. The t***.

 

i think souness talks alot of sense there and people cant get hung up on the fact he has called these clubs bigger than our's beacause in the big picture they are! I think its probly true about shepherd dabbling to much in the team and maybe if souness had his way we would have done alot better under him. He is by no means an awful manager and most of the team seemed to like him bar robert and bellamy, who are universally seen as selfish pricks so u cant say he lost the dressing room. HE was unfairly picked on from day 1 because he wasnt the fans choice, and this will keep on happening untill the croud gets behind the team (prooved once again in the alladyce debacle.) Maybe bringing back keegan with shearer would work because at least it would get universal backing. Obviously things went wrong for souness in the end and SA but can people really say it was all their fault when there is blatent problems behind the scenes at our club, which only are starting to sort themselves out now.

 

Point 1: Efforts against Villa - and the effort level was lost amidst the fisticuffs display put on by Dyer & Bowyer - Wigan Reserves and countless others suggest that morale was low despite the influence of the so-called club cancers' being removed from the 1st team picture and with it their so-called 'negative influence' having being effectively removed from the dressing room.

 

Point 2 (underlined): Bollocks, when he started making football based decisions - ie. substituting our best player against Charlton, when the game was there to be won..... and if witness accounts are to be believed when he then pursued and then physically assaulted the player in question at the training ground when the same player attempted to walk away from a further confrontation - in order to appease his ego was the point in time that the worm had come around full circle, especially for those who expressed reservations about his man-management record at the time of his appointment. Getting on his back from Day 1 - that's complete bollocks.

 

Two weeks of 'conservative support' was more than he was entitled to, but this non-support - akin to to that experienced by Allardyce at the end stages of his short reign - which you speak of didn't echoe through the terraces as you choose to believe. Witness the Chelsea home game which closed the curtains on our worst campaign in the top-filght in over a decade - the crowd reaction after that game was pretty bloody conservative given Souness' guidance of the team through whole season. If that was Anfield the would have been a collective voice calling for his head.

[sicsfingeredmong]

Souness is a liar by making the inference that Owen was 'Shepherd's Buy'.

 

I recall Souness' story at the press conference when Owen was unveiled, and this is in relation to how the club targetted him. Basically he walked into Shepherd's office, they discussed striking options, and Souness passed a note across the table. Michael Owen's name was written on that piece of paper - i even remember Souness statement, concerning Shepherd's reaction, with words to the effect of "i can't repeat in public what the chairman said"

[NE5]

Souness is a liar by making the inference that Owen was 'Shepherd's Buy'.

 

I recall Souness' story at the press conference when Owen was unveiled, and this in relation to how the club targetted him. Basically he walked into Shepherds office, they discussed striking options, and Souness passed a note across the table. Michael Owen's name was written on that piece of paper - i even remember Souness statement, concerning Shepherd's reaction, with words to the effect of "i can't repeat in public what the chairman said"

 

absolutely correct

 

 

[Cronky]

Souness had said earlier on in the previous season that he wanted Owen. I also recall that he and Shepherd had written a list of transfer targets, of which Owen's name was certainly one, if not at the top of the list.

 

But the situation was a bit more complicated than that. Souness wanted his players in early, and not right at the end of the transfer window when he couldn't do some pre-season work with them. Owen didn't want to come, and Souness then targetted Anelka. I don't think Souness was so set on Owen that he would have wanted to pay so much in transfer fee and wages, to a player who was coming in late and who was extremely reluctant to sign anyway. I know the fees and wages are down to the Chairman, but if he goes over the odds for one player then that restricts the manager's ability to strengthen in other areas.

 

It was pretty clear, then and afterwards, that the manager and Chairman weren't working in tandem. That was a pattern that was replicated with Robson and Roeder.

[Baggio]

I can recall Souness being interviewed in the airport on our way to one of our intertoto games and he confirmed he wanted Anelka, asked if a deal was likely he said "you will have to ask the chairman" but he did say however that he knew that Anelka was dying to come here.

[sicsfingeredmong]

Souness had said earlier on in the previous season that he wanted Owen. I also recall that he and Shepherd had written a list of transfer targets, of which Owen's name was certainly one, if not at the top of the list.

 

But the situation was a bit more complicated than that. Souness wanted his players in early, and not right at the end of the transfer window when he couldn't do some pre-season work with them. Owen didn't want to come, and Souness then targetted Anelka. I don't think Souness was so set on Owen that he would have wanted to pay so much in transfer fee and wages, to a player who was coming in late and who was extremely reluctant to sign anyway. I know the fees and wages are down to the Chairman, but if he goes over the odds for one player then that restricts the manager's ability to strengthen in other areas.

 

It was pretty clear, then and afterwards, that the manager and Chairman weren't working in tandem. That was a pattern that was replicated with Robson and Roeder.

 

Souness shouldn't have tried tapping up both Anelka and Boa Morte leading into that particular transfer window, especially Anelka who was then plying his trade at one of Galatasary's - ala Souness' former rival - hated rivals. Souness, being a despised figure in Fenerbache's circle - ie. a lunatic who planted a Galatasary flag on Fenerbache's pitch - that he is, 'tapping up' one of it's star players in Anelka backfired on him when Fenerbache's board issued a 'hands-off' warning but then again the clueless idiot didn't consider the parameters in play - ie. his negative link to Fenerbache - before trying to unsettle the player in question. I'd say this, that is the Souness/Fener parameter, cost us any chance of signing Anelka..... wrong time/wrong manager pissing off the wrong club. Afterall they did end up offloading him to Bolton.

 

If Souness wanted strikers in early, to work with them over the course of the pre-season, he shouldn't have turned his attentions - and blown 10m of transfer kitty - to signing Parker & Emre immediately after. Not only did he miss out on a 'bedding-in period' with both players - ie. Owen and Luque - but as we all know transfer fees rise towards the end of the window as selling clubs can hold a smoking gun at the heads of desperate buying clubs, and with a goal tally of 0 goals in the first month of the premiership that's exactly what we were and we payed over the odds as a result, for both Luque and Owen that is.

 

Souness' mismanagement of the squad, in his failing to correctly prioritise his initial 10m which was subsequently thrown towards the Parker & Emre signings, is to blame............. not the 35m that was handed to him to supposedly spice up the team a bit. I've never seen a manager more 'financially backed' in such a short space of time as Souness was by Shepherd.

[Cronky]

Souness had said earlier on in the previous season that he wanted Owen. I also recall that he and Shepherd had written a list of transfer targets, of which Owen's name was certainly one, if not at the top of the list.

 

But the situation was a bit more complicated than that. Souness wanted his players in early, and not right at the end of the transfer window when he couldn't do some pre-season work with them. Owen didn't want to come, and Souness then targetted Anelka. I don't think Souness was so set on Owen that he would have wanted to pay so much in transfer fee and wages, to a player who was coming in late and who was extremely reluctant to sign anyway. I know the fees and wages are down to the Chairman, but if he goes over the odds for one player then that restricts the manager's ability to strengthen in other areas.

 

It was pretty clear, then and afterwards, that the manager and Chairman weren't working in tandem. That was a pattern that was replicated with Robson and Roeder.

 

Souness shouldn't have tried tapping up both Anelka and Boa Morte leading into that particular transfer window, especially Anelka who was then plying his trade at one of Galatasary's - ala Souness' former rival - hated rivals. Souness, being a despised figure in Fenerbache's circle - ie. a lunatic who planted a Galatasary flag on Fenerbache's pitch - that he is, 'tapping up' one of it's star players in Anelka backfired on him when Fenerbache's board issued a 'hands-off' warning but then again the clueless idiot didn't consider the parameters in play - ie. his negative link to Fenerbache - before trying to unsettle the player in question. I'd say this, that is the Souness/Fener parameter, cost us any chance of signing Anelka..... wrong time/wrong manager pissing off the wrong club. Afterall they did end up offloading him to Bolton.

 

If Souness wanted strikers in early, to work with them over the course of the pre-season, he shouldn't have turned his attentions - and blown 10m of transfer kitty - to signing Parker & Emre immediately after. Not only did he miss out on a 'bedding-in period' with both players - ie. Owen and Luque - but as we all know transfer fees rise towards the end of the window as selling clubs can hold a smoking gun at the heads of desperate buying clubs, and with a goal tally of 0 goals in the first month of the premiership that's exactly what we were and we payed over the odds as a result, for both Luque and Owen that is.

 

Souness' mismanagement of the squad, in his failing to correctly prioritise his initial 10m which was subsequently thrown towards the Parker & Emre signings, is to blame............. not the 35m that was handed to him to supposedly spice up the team a bit. I've never seen a manager more 'financially backed' in such a short space of time as Souness was by Shepherd.

 

The story that went around about Anelka was that Shepherd found out how much Fener had paid Man City for Anelka (which was about £4 million), and then bid the same amount. (He only did that when Souness had practically forced his hand by going public about his wanting Anelka and Anelka wanting to come.) It sounded like a token gesture on Shepherd's part, because such a low bid was bound to be turned down. The other thing I'd heard was that Shearer wasn't keen on Anelka coming, and that both he and Shepherd were determined to secure Owen, no matter what the cost. Apparently, a similar thing happened with Boa Morte, where Shepherd wouldn't bid a reasonable amount.

 

I'd not heard the story about Fener being reluctant to deal with Souness because of his Galatasary connection. Personally, I think that if there was a problem at all, it wouldn't have been so great as to prevent a transfer going through.

 

I didn't get your point about Parker and Emre, because as I recall, they came quite early in the summer.

 

It's true that a lot of money was spent at that time, but it wasn't spent wisely, and Souness didn't have the degree of control that he should have had, over when and how it was spent.

[NE5]

Souness had said earlier on in the previous season that he wanted Owen. I also recall that he and Shepherd had written a list of transfer targets, of which Owen's name was certainly one, if not at the top of the list.

 

But the situation was a bit more complicated than that. Souness wanted his players in early, and not right at the end of the transfer window when he couldn't do some pre-season work with them. Owen didn't want to come, and Souness then targetted Anelka. I don't think Souness was so set on Owen that he would have wanted to pay so much in transfer fee and wages, to a player who was coming in late and who was extremely reluctant to sign anyway. I know the fees and wages are down to the Chairman, but if he goes over the odds for one player then that restricts the manager's ability to strengthen in other areas.

 

It was pretty clear, then and afterwards, that the manager and Chairman weren't working in tandem. That was a pattern that was replicated with Robson and Roeder.

 

Souness shouldn't have tried tapping up both Anelka and Boa Morte leading into that particular transfer window, especially Anelka who was then plying his trade at one of Galatasary's - ala Souness' former rival - hated rivals. Souness, being a despised figure in Fenerbache's circle - ie. a lunatic who planted a Galatasary flag on Fenerbache's pitch - that he is, 'tapping up' one of it's star players in Anelka backfired on him when Fenerbache's board issued a 'hands-off' warning but then again the clueless idiot didn't consider the parameters in play - ie. his negative link to Fenerbache - before trying to unsettle the player in question. I'd say this, that is the Souness/Fener parameter, cost us any chance of signing Anelka..... wrong time/wrong manager pissing off the wrong club. Afterall they did end up offloading him to Bolton.

 

If Souness wanted strikers in early, to work with them over the course of the pre-season, he shouldn't have turned his attentions - and blown 10m of transfer kitty - to signing Parker & Emre immediately after. Not only did he miss out on a 'bedding-in period' with both players - ie. Owen and Luque - but as we all know transfer fees rise towards the end of the window as selling clubs can hold a smoking gun at the heads of desperate buying clubs, and with a goal tally of 0 goals in the first month of the premiership that's exactly what we were and we payed over the odds as a result, for both Luque and Owen that is.

 

Souness' mismanagement of the squad, in his failing to correctly prioritise his initial 10m which was subsequently thrown towards the Parker & Emre signings, is to blame............. not the 35m that was handed to him to supposedly spice up the team a bit. I've never seen a manager more 'financially backed' in such a short space of time as Souness was by Shepherd.

 

The story that went around about Anelka was that Shepherd found out how much Fener had paid Man City for Anelka (which was about £4 million), and then bid the same amount. (He only did that when Souness had practically forced his hand by going public about his wanting Anelka and Anelka wanting to come.) It sounded like a token gesture on Shepherd's part, because such a low bid was bound to be turned down. The other thing I'd heard was that Shearer wasn't keen on Anelka coming, and that both he and Shepherd were determined to secure Owen, no matter what the cost. Apparently, a similar thing happened with Boa Morte, where Shepherd wouldn't bid a reasonable amount.

 

I'd not heard the story about Fener being reluctant to deal with Souness because of his Galatasary connection. Personally, I think that if there was a problem at all, it wouldn't have been so great as to prevent a transfer going through.

 

I didn't get your point about Parker and Emre, because as I recall, they came quite early in the summer.

 

It's true that a lot of money was spent at that time, but it wasn't spent wisely, and Souness didn't have the degree of control that he should have had, over when and how it was spent.

 

Lost of presumations there - mostly against Shepherd, surprise surprise. The one thing we know FOR SURE - and interestingly all those people who happily jumped on this bandwagon - have also [surprise surprise] disappeared since they were reminded of Souness' own statement that he wrote Owen's name down on that piece of paper. What a surprise again eh ? Souness shown to be a liar. Fancy that.

 

As for 35m quid to "tart up the team". .......... its a sign of desperate people who defend someone that makes such a statement.

 

 

[Thespence]

Souness V Shepherd

 

Is anyone really bothered. Neither work for the club & both of them seem like prize dickheads to me.  I am sure Fred will clear everything up in his book.

 

[fredbob]

Was souness's main target Anelka? If so what are the reason we couldnt get him? Surely money wasnt an issue if we end up getting Owen for double the price, i remember Souness beng quite vocal about Anelka and it seems he was Souness main target.

 

However i do remeber the piece of papaer incident,that does ring a bell, so who's to say what definitively happened, fromthe outlook it doesnt look as strigth forward as ither of them want to make out but i dont understand why we didnt end up going for the targets that were widely accepted as being Souness targets.

 

Someting smells fishy.

[NE5]

Souness V Shepherd

 

Is anyone really bothered. Neither work for the club & both of them seem like prize dickheads to me.  I am sure Fred will clear everything up in his book.

 

 

Shepherd has said that only one of our ex managers doesn't speak to him now. Its obviously Souness. Dalglish, Gullit, Bobby Robson and Roeder have no grudges then. Souness falls out with people everywhere he goes. People read it as you will  .......

 

It's been shown Souness is a liar, by his own hypocrisy, he certainly didn't run the club with its best interests at heart. Should make interesting reading no doubt.