Shepherd and his IDIOTIC choice Allardyce have DESTROYED NUFC

[NE5]

Simmer down you boring old man.

 

are you really 27 

 

 

[fredbob]

 

indeed, and the frightening thing is, they ie Mort and Ashley, didn't appear to have seen the error of their ways during the recent transfer window.

 

Back street corner shop here we come if they continue the current direction.

 

 

 

The "frightening" thing is that this same topic has been covered before and the timelines were all posted yet once again it seems to be dragged up to slate the way the club is being run, we complain about the press having a go at the club yet we're as good as them at spinning, if not better at times.

 

For some people it's more important to back Fat Fred than their football club.

 

For some people its more important to slate someone off for eating all the pies than to be able to see that running a club who qualify for europe more than every team bar 4 actually means they are doing a decent job of running the football club.

 

 

 

Still dont listen do you, i cant believe someone can use a stat which doesnt hold much water considering it doesnt paint the true situation of the club.

 

You conitue to use the 7 european qualifications out of 10 years as opposed to the 4 top 10 finishes in the same 10 years stat, even thought the top 10 finishes show the truer picture for the club.  If we were to look at who had the most top 10 finishes for the club in those 10 years, do you think we'd still be the 5th best? Nope. Show much for your ambitious chairman crap.

 

No wonder your "opinions" hold no water on this board when you talkabout "facts" which have no relevant context to the situation and are contrived to fit a silly agenda.

 

 

[Baggio]

Now you've done it.

[NE5]

 

indeed, and the frightening thing is, they ie Mort and Ashley, didn't appear to have seen the error of their ways during the recent transfer window.

 

Back street corner shop here we come if they continue the current direction.

 

 

 

The "frightening" thing is that this same topic has been covered before and the timelines were all posted yet once again it seems to be dragged up to slate the way the club is being run, we complain about the press having a go at the club yet we're as good as them at spinning, if not better at times.

 

For some people it's more important to back Fat Fred than their football club.

 

For some people its more important to slate someone off for eating all the pies than to be able to see that running a club who qualify for europe more than every team bar 4 actually means they are doing a decent job of running the football club.

 

 

 

Still dont listen do you, i cant believe someone can use a stat which doesnt hold much water considering it doesnt paint the true situation of the club.

 

You conitue to use the 7 european qualifications out of 10 years as opposed to the 4 top 10 finishes in the same 10 years stat, even thought the top 10 finishes show the truer picture for the club.  If we were to look at who had the most top 10 finishes for the club in those 10 years, do you think we'd still be the 5th best? Nope. Show much for your ambitious chairman crap.

 

No wonder your "opinions" hold no water on this board when you talkabout "facts" which have no relevant context to the situation and are contrived to fit a silly agenda.

 

 

 

Very important and relevant stat, is what it is.

 

I'll let you look up how many times we qualified for europe in the 30+ years preceding 1992 if you still can't understand how far forward we moved under the old board.

 

Thats not an opinion by the way, you can't argue with league positions and european qualifications, and a full ground every home game either. When we really were shit, only 20000 fans supported the team evermore, blah blah blah, and good players constantly wanted to leave the club including locally born Newcastle supporters to further their ambitions

 

 

[Baggio]

Told you.

[fredbob]

 

indeed, and the frightening thing is, they ie Mort and Ashley, didn't appear to have seen the error of their ways during the recent transfer window.

 

Back street corner shop here we come if they continue the current direction.

 

 

 

The "frightening" thing is that this same topic has been covered before and the timelines were all posted yet once again it seems to be dragged up to slate the way the club is being run, we complain about the press having a go at the club yet we're as good as them at spinning, if not better at times.

 

For some people it's more important to back Fat Fred than their football club.

 

For some people its more important to slate someone off for eating all the pies than to be able to see that running a club who qualify for europe more than every team bar 4 actually means they are doing a decent job of running the football club.

 

 

 

Still dont listen do you, i cant believe someone can use a stat which doesnt hold much water considering it doesnt paint the true situation of the club.

 

You conitue to use the 7 european qualifications out of 10 years as opposed to the 4 top 10 finishes in the same 10 years stat, even thought the top 10 finishes show the truer picture for the club.  If we were to look at who had the most top 10 finishes for the club in those 10 years, do you think we'd still be the 5th best? Nope. Show much for your ambitious chairman crap.

 

No wonder your "opinions" hold no water on this board when you talkabout "facts" which have no relevant context to the situation and are contrived to fit a silly agenda.

 

 

 

Very important and relevant stat, is what it is.

 

I'll let you look up how many times we qualified for europe in the 30+ years preceding 1992 if you still can't understand how far forward we moved under the old board.

 

Thats not an opinion by the way, you can't argue with league positions and european qualifications, and a full ground every home game either. When we really were s***, only 20000 fans supported the team evermore, blah blah blah, and good players constantly wanted to leave the club including locally born Newcastle supporters to further their ambitions

 

 

 

Im not arguing about how far the old board took us though, im saying that the use of that stat does nothing to enhance your argument because it doesnt paint anything close to the true picture of the club.

 

How far could the club of dropped before you stopped using the argument that we were crap 92?

 

I mean, if under Shephard the club went into freefall, and ended up in the same place he found them, then would he be excused because of what he had achieved for the club because he showed ambiion in the first place?

 

I imagine you are a sensible wise man deep down behind that cantankerous exterior and you can see where theres a point where his fallacies wont be excused by his previous record, which point would tat be for you? For most of us, its at the point that he sacked SBR/appointment of Souness which basiclly unravelled all the work that was done by him and the old board. His achievments in hindsights were clouded because of the financial situation and the position in the league where he left us.

 

Can you not see that? This isnt a question of ambition, that magic buzz word you like so much, this was a question of runing abusiness properly and using advantage that we had as a club to further ourselves. You have to realise that most fans see us as being on par with Man U at one point in our history, a bit further down the line we were on par with the likes of Chelsea and Liverpool.

 

Why are we not there now? Who do you attribute that downfall to? For most the fans it was the oldboard andShephard.

[UV]

 

indeed, and the frightening thing is, they ie Mort and Ashley, didn't appear to have seen the error of their ways during the recent transfer window.

 

Back street corner shop here we come if they continue the current direction.

 

 

 

The "frightening" thing is that this same topic has been covered before and the timelines were all posted yet once again it seems to be dragged up to slate the way the club is being run, we complain about the press having a go at the club yet we're as good as them at spinning, if not better at times.

 

For some people it's more important to back Fat Fred than their football club.

 

For some people its more important to slate someone off for eating all the pies than to be able to see that running a club who qualify for europe more than every team bar 4 actually means they are doing a decent job of running the football club.

 

 

 

Still dont listen do you, i cant believe someone can use a stat which doesnt hold much water considering it doesnt paint the true situation of the club.

 

You conitue to use the 7 european qualifications out of 10 years as opposed to the 4 top 10 finishes in the same 10 years stat, even thought the top 10 finishes show the truer picture for the club.  If we were to look at who had the most top 10 finishes for the club in those 10 years, do you think we'd still be the 5th best? Nope. Show much for your ambitious chairman crap.

 

No wonder your "opinions" hold no water on this board when you talkabout "facts" which have no relevant context to the situation and are contrived to fit a silly agenda.

 

 

 

If you want to talk about relevance, what relevance is the arbitrary choice of 10th? Top half. Wow. No footballing significance whatsoever. Mid table is much of a muchness, pretty much a lottery where you end up. Oh noes Spurs were better than us because in the 8 years they finished mid table they came 9th twice and 10th twice, but in the 6 years we came mid table the best we did was 11th!

 

If you want to talk about relevance you have to talk about relevant achievements. Qualifying for Europe is a relevant achievement.

 

It's a hell of a lot harder to get a team into the top 4 (which we did 5 times under the previous board) than it is to win the also-ran pissing contest in the middle.

 

 

Never mind, we'll be great now we're under new management, and thank god we didn't waste any money on players in January eh? You must be well chuffed about that.

 

Can you not see that? This isnt a question of ambition, that magic buzz word you like so much, this was a question of runing abusiness properly and using advantage that we had as a club to further ourselves. You have to realise that most fans see us as being on par with Man U at one point in our history, a bit further down the line we were on par with the likes of Chelsea and Liverpool.

 

Only if they were complete idiots. You didn't did you?

[fredbob]

 

indeed, and the frightening thing is, they ie Mort and Ashley, didn't appear to have seen the error of their ways during the recent transfer window.

 

Back street corner shop here we come if they continue the current direction.

 

 

 

The "frightening" thing is that this same topic has been covered before and the timelines were all posted yet once again it seems to be dragged up to slate the way the club is being run, we complain about the press having a go at the club yet we're as good as them at spinning, if not better at times.

 

For some people it's more important to back Fat Fred than their football club.

 

For some people its more important to slate someone off for eating all the pies than to be able to see that running a club who qualify for europe more than every team bar 4 actually means they are doing a decent job of running the football club.

 

 

 

Still dont listen do you, i cant believe someone can use a stat which doesnt hold much water considering it doesnt paint the true situation of the club.

 

You conitue to use the 7 european qualifications out of 10 years as opposed to the 4 top 10 finishes in the same 10 years stat, even thought the top 10 finishes show the truer picture for the club. If we were to look at who had the most top 10 finishes for the club in those 10 years, do you think we'd still be the 5th best? Nope. Show much for your ambitious chairman crap.

 

No wonder your "opinions" hold no water on this board when you talkabout "facts" which have no relevant context to the situation and are contrived to fit a silly agenda.

 

 

 

If you want to talk about relevance, what relevance is the arbitrary choice of 10th? Top half. Wow. No footballing significance whatsoever. Mid table is much of a muchness, pretty much a lottery where you end up. Oh noes Spurs were better than us because in the 8 years they finished mid table they came 9th twice and 10th twice, but in the 6 years we came mid table the best we did was 11th!

 

If you want to talk about relevance you have to talk about relevant achievements. Qualifying for Europe is a relevant achievement.

 

It's a hell of a lot harder to get a team into the top 4 (which we did 5 times under the previous board) than it is to win the also-ran pissing contest in the middle.

 

 

Never mind, we'll be great now we're under new management, and thank god we didn't waste any money on players in January eh? You must be well chuffed about that.

 

Can you not see that? This isnt a question of ambition, that magic buzz word you like so much, this was a question of runing abusiness properly and using advantage that we had as a club to further ourselves. You have to realise that most fans see us as being on par with Man U at one point in our history, a bit further down the line we were on par with the likes of Chelsea and Liverpool.

 

Only if they were complete idiots. You didn't did you?

 

You didnt think that when we were in the running for the title we were in a position to estabillish ourselves as a dominant team in england along the likes of Man U? Ill be honest i did, and when we were having those brilliant fininhse under SBR you didnt see us as a club that was on par with the likes of Liverpool and Chelsea, teams we were competing with for the top 4 finishes at one point? Ill be honest with you here as well, i didm but becuase of one incompetent decision by whomever we arent there.

 

Fair play about the European qualifications bit, not really seen it that way, but i still think that our top 10  is a finishes are moreof a relevant stat because its atruer recoginition of the cboards overall decisions, ie manaer choices and finances. There is something significant about fininshing in the top 50%.

[NE5]

 

indeed, and the frightening thing is, they ie Mort and Ashley, didn't appear to have seen the error of their ways during the recent transfer window.

 

Back street corner shop here we come if they continue the current direction.

 

 

 

The "frightening" thing is that this same topic has been covered before and the timelines were all posted yet once again it seems to be dragged up to slate the way the club is being run, we complain about the press having a go at the club yet we're as good as them at spinning, if not better at times.

 

For some people it's more important to back Fat Fred than their football club.

 

For some people its more important to slate someone off for eating all the pies than to be able to see that running a club who qualify for europe more than every team bar 4 actually means they are doing a decent job of running the football club.

 

 

 

Still dont listen do you, i cant believe someone can use a stat which doesnt hold much water considering it doesnt paint the true situation of the club.

 

You conitue to use the 7 european qualifications out of 10 years as opposed to the 4 top 10 finishes in the same 10 years stat, even thought the top 10 finishes show the truer picture for the club.  If we were to look at who had the most top 10 finishes for the club in those 10 years, do you think we'd still be the 5th best? Nope. Show much for your ambitious chairman crap.

 

No wonder your "opinions" hold no water on this board when you talkabout "facts" which have no relevant context to the situation and are contrived to fit a silly agenda.

 

 

 

If you want to talk about relevance, what relevance is the arbitrary choice of 10th? Top half. Wow. No footballing significance whatsoever. Mid table is much of a muchness, pretty much a lottery where you end up. Oh noes Spurs were better than us because in the 8 years they finished mid table they came 9th twice and 10th twice, but in the 6 years we came mid table the best we did was 11th!

 

If you want to talk about relevance you have to talk about relevant achievements. Qualifying for Europe is a relevant achievement.

 

It's a hell of a lot harder to get a team into the top 4 (which we did 5 times under the previous board) than it is to win the also-ran pissing contest in the middle.

 

 

Never mind, we'll be great now we're under new management, and thank god we didn't waste any money on players in January eh? You must be well chuffed about that.

 

Can you not see that? This isnt a question of ambition, that magic buzz word you like so much, this was a question of runing abusiness properly and using advantage that we had as a club to further ourselves. You have to realise that most fans see us as being on par with Man U at one point in our history, a bit further down the line we were on par with the likes of Chelsea and Liverpool.

 

Only if they were complete idiots. You didn't did you?

 

You didnt think that when we were in the running for the title we were in a position to estabillish ourselves as a dominant team in england along the likes of Man U? Ill be honest i did, and when we were having those brilliant fininhse under SBR you didnt see us as a club that was on par with the likes of Liverpool and Chelsea, teams we were competing with for the top 4 finishes at one point? Ill be honest with you here as well, i didm but becuase of one incompetent decision by whomever we arent there.

 

Fair play about the European qualifications bit, not really seen it that way, but i still think that our top 10  is a finishes are moreof a relevant stat because its atruer recoginition of the cboards overall decisions, ie manaer choices and finances. There is something significant about fininshing in the top 50%.

 

As UV says, what is the relevant difference between finishing 9th, 10th, 11th or 12th ? Its not significant at all in footballing terms. Its half way, although higher than we are this season, on course for our lowest league position since, er, we were promoted in 1993.

 

Qualifying for europe is a significant achievement, if it isn't, why were people celebrating qualifying for it ?

 

 

[wacko]

NUFC were up there with Liverpool and Chelsea, but not Man Utd. Then Shepherd hired Souness.

 

This was posted on an LFC board:

Houllier was exactly what you needed, because you needed exactly the same job done as we did when he arrived. Discipline in the club, gradual movement up the league table, trouble makers cleared out, solidity in defence, and general inprovement and modernisation in the club overall, including it's structures right down to youth level.

 

He was the ideal choice.

I think he's probably right. People forget how far forwards Houllier brought us before he lost the plot a bit.

 

I'm not convinced by Ashley and Mort, either. Keegan and Wise are both huge gambles, and that's not really what the club needed, even if Ashley's put things on an even keel financially.

 

 

[dcmk]

The day we started propelling backwards down the league was when Shepherd tried to sign Rooney.  Signed Kluivert without consent of SBR, messed him around with new contract.

 

He basically tried to run the whole team in that summer. 

[Wullie]

How did we need exactly the same job as Houllier who took over a 3rd placed Liverpool who also had the best young striker in Europe just arriving?

 

He'd have been fucked to arrive here and find the same striker unable to hit a barn door.

[dcmk]

How did we need exactly the same job as Houllier who took over a 3rd placed Liverpool who also had the best young striker in Europe just arriving?

 

He'd have been f***** to arrive here and find the same striker unable to hit a barn door.

 

Martins

[wacko]

How did we need exactly the same job as Houllier who took over a 3rd placed Liverpool who also had the best young striker in Europe just arriving?

 

He'd have been fucked to arrive here and find the same striker unable to hit a barn door.

Just because Owen is shite now hardly makes it an entirely different situation. He sorted our crappy defence with Henchoz and Hyypia, brought in McAllister and Hamann, who won us a lot of silverware. Admittedly, they're just a few inspired signings amongst five times as many shite ones.

 

Nevertheless, he took us from more or less where you were when SBR left to an historic, if second-rate, treble and a second place  finish in the league. He's not the World's Greatest Manager, but he'd be a better man for this particular job than Keegan.

[Wullie]

How did we need exactly the same job as Houllier who took over a 3rd placed Liverpool who also had the best young striker in Europe just arriving?

 

He'd have been fucked to arrive here and find the same striker unable to hit a barn door.

Just because Owen is shite now hardly makes it an entirely different situation. He sorted our crappy defence with Henchoz and Hyypia, brought in McAllister and Hamann, who won us a lot of silverware. Admittedly, they're just a few inspired signings amongst five times as many shite ones.

 

Nevertheless, he took us from more or less where you were when SBR left to an historic, if second-rate, treble and a second place  finish in the league. He's not the World's Greatest Manager, but he'd be a better man for this particular job than Keegan.

 

Houllier doesn't have any experience at this end of the table, his transfer record is pretty poor iyam and he is dour. He even took over Lyon when they were 3 or 4 time Champions so none there either.

 

His Liverpool record in the League, having taken over a side that finished 3rd, reads: 7th, 4th, 3rd, 2nd, 5th, 4th. Stable but hardly ground breaking.

 

Not saying he's not a good manager, but I don't think he ticked the boxes for this job in our situation.

[Dave]

I assumed Wacko meant us getting Houllier instead of Souness at that time.

[TRon]

 

indeed, and the frightening thing is, they ie Mort and Ashley, didn't appear to have seen the error of their ways during the recent transfer window.

 

Back street corner shop here we come if they continue the current direction.

 

 

 

The "frightening" thing is that this same topic has been covered before and the timelines were all posted yet once again it seems to be dragged up to slate the way the club is being run, we complain about the press having a go at the club yet we're as good as them at spinning, if not better at times.

 

For some people it's more important to back Fat Fred than their football club.

 

For some people its more important to slate someone off for eating all the pies than to be able to see that running a club who qualify for europe more than every team bar 4 actually means they are doing a decent job of running the football club.

 

 

 

Still dont listen do you, i cant believe someone can use a stat which doesnt hold much water considering it doesnt paint the true situation of the club.

 

You conitue to use the 7 european qualifications out of 10 years as opposed to the 4 top 10 finishes in the same 10 years stat, even thought the top 10 finishes show the truer picture for the club.  If we were to look at who had the most top 10 finishes for the club in those 10 years, do you think we'd still be the 5th best? Nope. Show much for your ambitious chairman crap.

 

No wonder your "opinions" hold no water on this board when you talkabout "facts" which have no relevant context to the situation and are contrived to fit a silly agenda.

 

 

 

If you want to talk about relevance, what relevance is the arbitrary choice of 10th? Top half. Wow. No footballing significance whatsoever. Mid table is much of a muchness, pretty much a lottery where you end up. Oh noes Spurs were better than us because in the 8 years they finished mid table they came 9th twice and 10th twice, but in the 6 years we came mid table the best we did was 11th!

 

If you want to talk about relevance you have to talk about relevant achievements. Qualifying for Europe is a relevant achievement.

 

It's a hell of a lot harder to get a team into the top 4 (which we did 5 times under the previous board) than it is to win the also-ran pissing contest in the middle.

 

 

Never mind, we'll be great now we're under new management, and thank god we didn't waste any money on players in January eh? You must be well chuffed about that.

 

Can you not see that? This isnt a question of ambition, that magic buzz word you like so much, this was a question of runing abusiness properly and using advantage that we had as a club to further ourselves. You have to realise that most fans see us as being on par with Man U at one point in our history, a bit further down the line we were on par with the likes of Chelsea and Liverpool.

 

Only if they were complete idiots. You didn't did you?

 

The success under the previous boards was never under-appreciated, especially while Freddie Fletcher and John Hall were still on board, but the appointments of Souness and Roeder showed a complete lack of judgement and football knowledge. There were other daft diversions as well, like spending all summer chasing Rooney then failing to sign anyone else when it all fell through. Shepherd vetoed too many good targets then replaced them with inferior playes. Anelka could have come if we'd pushed hard enough while he was in Turkey. Robson was refused Miguel because Shepherd wouldn't back him, and instead we got Carr. For someone who supposedly backed his managers Shepherd interfered quite a lot.

[Wullie]

I assumed Wacko meant us getting Houllier instead of Souness at that time.

 

Aaaaah. Hiring the manager that the team directly above us had just binned. That'd have gone down well.

[Dave]

I assumed Wacko meant us getting Houllier instead of Souness at that time.

 

Aaaaah. Hiring the manager that the team directly above us had just binned. That'd have gone down well.

 

Good point.

[sicsfingeredmong]

So having your theory pulled apart by Mick posting a link to the real reason why the Barton deal was delayed, you're now basing your whole buy to sell theory on one comment from the chairman saying the the players coming in were good business, even though the dates of the transfers don't back up your claim. Considering you didn't even know about the loyalty bonus holding up the deal I'd suggest you try and find out more about the situation before coming out with such bollocks in future. Cheers.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/w/west_ham_utd/6706955.stm

 

Parker was sold to West Ham on the 6th of June, we then happen to raise whatever our intial offer was for Barton and it gets accepted in the process - ie. to match West Ham's bid: and West Ham were looking to buy 2  central midfielders at the time - and this took place after Parker's outgoing transfer was finalised. We eventually sign Barton a week later. The timeline backs up this opinion imo, that is from even getting from first to second base - getting to the stage where City let us through the door and allowed us to the talk to the player in question. Mick's point, backed up by his link of course, is still a moot one. It was worrying at the time to see the board waiting on incoming funds, rather than knocking the ambitious Hammers right of the water from the get-go, before getting back in the ball-park.

 

Closely resembles a 'finance through sales/sell to buy' transfer policy to me.

 

Cheers.

 

Just about the only transfer that stands on it's own - ie. one that wasn't financed by one major outgoing transfer, or through the sell-offs of bits & pieces or bit-part players - was the Smith transfer, and even that went on the back of a period of inactivity while the cautious buggers up top scoured over the books - something they should've down prior to buying SJH's shareholding...... all the while Allardyce's alleged targets slipped through the net, and i'm sure this is the transfer which Mick alluded to as being the deal that wasn't dependant on the book-end sales of Parker & Dyer at both ends of the transfer window.

 

Despite the shambolic happenings pertaining to January there seems to be quite a bit of resolute defending of Ashley & Mort going on here. I have a sneaking suspicion this might be the case simply because they're not Freddy Shepherd.

 

 

[TRon]

So having your theory pulled apart by Mick posting a link to the real reason why the Barton deal was delayed, you're now basing your whole buy to sell theory on one comment from the chairman saying the the players coming in were good business, even though the dates of the transfers don't back up your claim. Considering you didn't even know about the loyalty bonus holding up the deal I'd suggest you try and find out more about the situation before coming out with such bollocks in future. Cheers.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/w/west_ham_utd/6706955.stm

 

Parker was sold to West Ham on the 6th of June, we then happen to raise whatever our intial offer was for Barton and it gets accepted in the process - ie. to match West Ham's bid: and West Ham were looking to buy 2  central midfielders at the time - and this took place after Parker's outgoing transfer was finalised. We eventually sign Barton a week later. The timeline backs up this opinion imo, that is from even getting from first to second base - getting to the stage where City let us through the door and allowed us to the talk to the player in question. Mick's point, backed up by his link of course, is still a moot one. It was worrying at the time to see the board waiting on incoming funds, rather than knocking the ambitious Hammers right of the water from the get-go, before getting back in the ball-park.

 

Closely resembles a 'finance through sales/sell to buy' transfer policy to me.

 

Cheers.

 

Just about the only transfer that stands on it's own - ie. one that wasn't financed by one major outgoing transfer, or through the sell-offs of bits & pieces or bit-part players - was the Smith transfer, and even that went on the back of a period of inactivity while the cautious buggers up top scoured over the books - something they should've down prior to buying SJH's shareholding...... all the while Allardyce's alleged targets slipped through the net, and i'm sure this is the transfer which Mick alluded to as being the deal that dependant on the book-end sales of Parker & Dyer at both ends of the transfer window.

 

Despite the shambolic happenings pertaining to January there seems to be quite a bit of resolute defending of Ashley & Mort going on here. I have a sneaking suspicion this might be the case simply because they're not Freddy Shepherd.

 

 

 

or it might be they put their money where their mouth is.

[NE5]

 

indeed, and the frightening thing is, they ie Mort and Ashley, didn't appear to have seen the error of their ways during the recent transfer window.

 

Back street corner shop here we come if they continue the current direction.

 

 

 

The "frightening" thing is that this same topic has been covered before and the timelines were all posted yet once again it seems to be dragged up to slate the way the club is being run, we complain about the press having a go at the club yet we're as good as them at spinning, if not better at times.

 

For some people it's more important to back Fat Fred than their football club.

 

For some people its more important to slate someone off for eating all the pies than to be able to see that running a club who qualify for europe more than every team bar 4 actually means they are doing a decent job of running the football club.

 

 

 

Still dont listen do you, i cant believe someone can use a stat which doesnt hold much water considering it doesnt paint the true situation of the club.

 

You conitue to use the 7 european qualifications out of 10 years as opposed to the 4 top 10 finishes in the same 10 years stat, even thought the top 10 finishes show the truer picture for the club.  If we were to look at who had the most top 10 finishes for the club in those 10 years, do you think we'd still be the 5th best? Nope. Show much for your ambitious chairman crap.

 

No wonder your "opinions" hold no water on this board when you talkabout "facts" which have no relevant context to the situation and are contrived to fit a silly agenda.

 

 

 

If you want to talk about relevance, what relevance is the arbitrary choice of 10th? Top half. Wow. No footballing significance whatsoever. Mid table is much of a muchness, pretty much a lottery where you end up. Oh noes Spurs were better than us because in the 8 years they finished mid table they came 9th twice and 10th twice, but in the 6 years we came mid table the best we did was 11th!

 

If you want to talk about relevance you have to talk about relevant achievements. Qualifying for Europe is a relevant achievement.

 

It's a hell of a lot harder to get a team into the top 4 (which we did 5 times under the previous board) than it is to win the also-ran pissing contest in the middle.

 

 

Never mind, we'll be great now we're under new management, and thank god we didn't waste any money on players in January eh? You must be well chuffed about that.

 

Can you not see that? This isnt a question of ambition, that magic buzz word you like so much, this was a question of runing abusiness properly and using advantage that we had as a club to further ourselves. You have to realise that most fans see us as being on par with Man U at one point in our history, a bit further down the line we were on par with the likes of Chelsea and Liverpool.

 

Only if they were complete idiots. You didn't did you?

 

The success under the previous boards was never under-appreciated, especially while Freddie Fletcher and John Hall were still on board, but the appointments of Souness and Roeder showed a complete lack of judgement and football knowledge. There were other daft diversions as well, like spending all summer chasing Rooney then failing to sign anyone else when it all fell through. Shepherd vetoed too many good targets then replaced them with inferior playes. Anelka could have come if we'd pushed hard enough while he was in Turkey. Robson was refused Miguel because Shepherd wouldn't back him, and instead we got Carr. For someone who supposedly backed his managers Shepherd interfered quite a lot.

 

oh dear.

 

Coming from someone who is slating the old board for overspending, and defending the new board for underspending, I hope you see the irony in this but I don't expect you to.

 

To be fair, I can think of a few others just like you  mackems.gif

[sicsfingeredmong]

 

Mort's press release early in the same transfer window, as i've referred to - somebody will no doubt 'google it', is good enough to back up my claim.

 

Why don't you google it if you're using it to back something up?

 

The only things I remember him saying is words to the effect that we would no longer be ripped off by paying OTT for players.

 

The article, with Mort's 'good business' reference pertaining to our transfer dealings in the opening two weeks of the transfer i'm talking about - which refer to the Barton/Viduka/Geremi and Parker's respective transfers, was posted on this very forum.

 

Why doesn't Baggio go and find it. The interview i refer to was posted on this very forum ages ago. Baggio is quite adept at scouring bandwidth & finding dates etc. Since his major contribution to the last two pages this thread has revolved around providing debatative support for you Mick, rather than formulating his own argument, Baggio should have little problem with regards to time constraints and being cluey enough to find the statement which you obvously believe doesn't exist.

 

It was strikingly convenient in one other thread that Souness' forgotten quotes - ie. in reference to Owen's transfer, that the player in question was in fact Souness' buy and not one of Shepherd's trophy signings - somehow went missing despite the internet bieng a hub of information.

 

 

[Mick]

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/w/west_ham_utd/6706955.stm

 

Parker was sold to West Ham on the 6th of June, we then happen to raise whatever our intial offer was for Barton and it gets accepted in the process - ie. to match West Ham's bid: and West Ham were looking to buy 2  central midfielders at the time - and this took place after Parker's outgoing transfer was finalised. We eventually sign Barton a week later. The timeline backs up this opinion imo, that is from even getting from first to second base - getting to the stage where City let us through the door and allowed us to the talk to the player in question. Mick's point, backed up by his link of course, is still a moot one. It was worrying at the time to see the board waiting on incoming funds, rather than knocking the ambitious Hammers right of the water from the get-go, before getting back in the ball-park.

 

Closely resembles a 'finance through sales/sell to buy' transfer policy to me.

 

Cheers.

 

Just about the only transfer that stands on it's own - ie. one that wasn't financed by one major outgoing transfer, or through the sell-offs of bits & pieces or bit-part players - was the Smith transfer, and even that went on the back of a period of inactivity while the cautious buggers up top scoured over the books - something they should've down prior to buying SJH's shareholding...... all the while Allardyce's alleged targets slipped through the net, and i'm sure this is the transfer which Mick alluded to as being the deal that dependant on the book-end sales of Parker & Dyer at both ends of the transfer window.

 

Despite the shambolic happenings pertaining to January there seems to be quite a bit of resolute defending of Ashley & Mort going on here. I have a sneaking suspicion this might be the case simply because they're not Freddy Shepherd.

 

 

 

The defending of them in this case might have something to do with Parker being sold on 6th June, Ashley not owning the club until 15th June only to find we no longer have a hold up in the Barton transfer a day later on the 16th June.  

 

Edit, shit, I was wrong with one of my dates, Barton signed the day before Ashley gained full control, he signed on 14th June, Mort only became chairman on 24th June. 

[TRon]

 

indeed, and the frightening thing is, they ie Mort and Ashley, didn't appear to have seen the error of their ways during the recent transfer window.

 

Back street corner shop here we come if they continue the current direction.

 

 

 

The "frightening" thing is that this same topic has been covered before and the timelines were all posted yet once again it seems to be dragged up to slate the way the club is being run, we complain about the press having a go at the club yet we're as good as them at spinning, if not better at times.

 

For some people it's more important to back Fat Fred than their football club.

 

For some people its more important to slate someone off for eating all the pies than to be able to see that running a club who qualify for europe more than every team bar 4 actually means they are doing a decent job of running the football club.

 

 

 

Still dont listen do you, i cant believe someone can use a stat which doesnt hold much water considering it doesnt paint the true situation of the club.

 

You conitue to use the 7 european qualifications out of 10 years as opposed to the 4 top 10 finishes in the same 10 years stat, even thought the top 10 finishes show the truer picture for the club.  If we were to look at who had the most top 10 finishes for the club in those 10 years, do you think we'd still be the 5th best? Nope. Show much for your ambitious chairman crap.

 

No wonder your "opinions" hold no water on this board when you talkabout "facts" which have no relevant context to the situation and are contrived to fit a silly agenda.

 

 

 

If you want to talk about relevance, what relevance is the arbitrary choice of 10th? Top half. Wow. No footballing significance whatsoever. Mid table is much of a muchness, pretty much a lottery where you end up. Oh noes Spurs were better than us because in the 8 years they finished mid table they came 9th twice and 10th twice, but in the 6 years we came mid table the best we did was 11th!

 

If you want to talk about relevance you have to talk about relevant achievements. Qualifying for Europe is a relevant achievement.

 

It's a hell of a lot harder to get a team into the top 4 (which we did 5 times under the previous board) than it is to win the also-ran pissing contest in the middle.

 

 

Never mind, we'll be great now we're under new management, and thank god we didn't waste any money on players in January eh? You must be well chuffed about that.

 

Can you not see that? This isnt a question of ambition, that magic buzz word you like so much, this was a question of runing abusiness properly and using advantage that we had as a club to further ourselves. You have to realise that most fans see us as being on par with Man U at one point in our history, a bit further down the line we were on par with the likes of Chelsea and Liverpool.

 

Only if they were complete idiots. You didn't did you?

 

The success under the previous boards was never under-appreciated, especially while Freddie Fletcher and John Hall were still on board, but the appointments of Souness and Roeder showed a complete lack of judgement and football knowledge. There were other daft diversions as well, like spending all summer chasing Rooney then failing to sign anyone else when it all fell through. Shepherd vetoed too many good targets then replaced them with inferior playes. Anelka could have come if we'd pushed hard enough while he was in Turkey. Robson was refused Miguel because Shepherd wouldn't back him, and instead we got Carr. For someone who supposedly backed his managers Shepherd interfered quite a lot.

 

oh dear.

 

Coming from someone who is slating the old board for overspending, and defending the new board for underspending, I hope you see the irony in this but I don't expect you to.

 

To be fair, I can think of a few others just like you  mackems.gif

 

I assume you can read, but anyway, over-spending or under-spending wasn't the key part of my last post. It was about wise judgements and good decisions as Chairman.