Shearergol Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 dunno daglish set us back aswell He signed some very good players for us. He should've we were the 2nd best team in the country, one of the richest in the world and in the Champion's League. and those players still took us from that position to mid-table. given time i'm sure he'd have done better but he did a poor job short-term. The football we played under Dalglish was atrocious. He did make some good signings in Given, Solano, Hamman (for that 1 season) but made some equally bad signings like the jobs for the boys (Rush, Barnes, his son etc), Des Hamilton, Andreas Andersson, Lionel Perez...... falling out with Ginola,selling Ferdinand and replacing them sub standard players. Everyone goes on about him taking us to 2nd place in the CL, but that was with Keegans team. The season after was his team......the one where we performed so miserably, playing largely boring negative football and finishing 13th. Hardly his fault Ferdinand was sold though. i know, just replacing him with rubbish substandard players was the issue The only manager to purchase a top striker since Shearer/Ferdinand (I'm not counting Owen, as he's not done it for us) is when a certain man brought in a certain Craig Bellamy. Dalglish was unlucky with a few of his buys tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 dunno daglish set us back aswell He signed some very good players for us. He should've we were the 2nd best team in the country, one of the richest in the world and in the Champion's League. and those players still took us from that position to mid-table. given time i'm sure he'd have done better but he did a poor job short-term. The football we played under Dalglish was atrocious. He did make some good signings in Given, Solano, Hamman (for that 1 season) but made some equally bad signings like the jobs for the boys (Rush, Barnes, his son etc), Des Hamilton, Andreas Andersson, Lionel Perez...... falling out with Ginola,selling Ferdinand and replacing them sub standard players. Everyone goes on about him taking us to 2nd place in the CL, but that was with Keegans team. The season after was his team......the one where we performed so miserably, playing largely boring negative football and finishing 13th. Hardly his fault Ferdinand was sold though. i'm no apologist for dalglish but to underestimate the effect losing shearer had is to do him a massive disservice - was the best striker in europe at the time and would have affected everything maassively agreed. The point about Dalglish is that, at the time, he had a winning record better than even Alex Ferguson, he appeared to be a top, top appointment, of the calibre of Fergie, Wenger, Mourhinho etc now. He had also taken a great team on at Liverpool and improved them, and with flair players too. Exactly what we wanted here at the time. Then won the title with another club, a feat few have equalled. Won 3 manager of the year awards, and 4 titles in all. Saying he was crap or anything like questioning why he got the job, well the reason he got the job is for the reasons above. These hindsight merchants really make me laugh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowen Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 I agree NE5, I though Dalglish was a brilliant appointment at the time, unfortunately it didn't work out for us. After that, I wasn't convinced by Gullit but was willing to give him a go - shite sadly- Robson was brilliant and the less said about the two after that the better. BTW does anyone think there's any milage in the Owen/Dalglish analogy? Should have been brilliant, superb record, ultimately a mistake. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 Dalglish might have worked out for us if Shepherd hadn't sacked him a few games into the 98-99 season right after giving him loads of transfer cash. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 Dalglish might have worked out for us if Shepherd hadn't sacked him. don't buy that either, he had no answers...that's the sign of a good manager - answers to problems dalglish faced them and came up with nothing, as has every manager after him except robson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest king harry Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 The thing is, and correct me if im wrong, but Dalglish had to build up again from the bottom. Had Keegan not neglected, indeed complety stopped the reserve team, and i may be wrong but the youth team. Dalglish started putting all that together again. I think given more time, he would of done ok. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 The thing is, and correct me if im wrong, but Dalglish had to build up again from the bottom. Had Keegan not neglected, indeed complety stopped the reserve team, and i may be wrong but the youth team. Dalglish started putting all that together again. I think given more time, he would of done ok. The neglect of the non-first team side of things is perhaps overplayed a tad and get Dalglish off the hook a bit in the eyes of some for the way in which he dismantled Keegan's side unneccessarily. Dalglish was unlucky in some ways too though and wasn't really given enough time either. Just my take on it, anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 The thing is, and correct me if im wrong, but Dalglish had to build up again from the bottom. Had Keegan not neglected, indeed complety stopped the reserve team, and i may be wrong but the youth team. Dalglish started putting all that together again. I think given more time, he would of done ok. The neglect of the non-first team side of things is perhaps overplayed a tad and get Dalglish off the hook a bit in the eyes of some for the way in which he dismantled Keegan's side unneccessarily. Dalglish was unlucky in some ways too though and wasn't really given enough time either. Just my take on it, anyway. 100% agreed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wor jackie Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 dalglish was shite Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 dalglish was s**** well, i can see you've thought it through and come to a considered opinion so, agreed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 dunno daglish set us back aswell He signed some very good players for us. He should've we were the 2nd best team in the country, one of the richest in the world and in the Champion's League. and those players still took us from that position to mid-table. given time i'm sure he'd have done better but he did a poor job short-term. The football we played under Dalglish was atrocious. He did make some good signings in Given, Solano, Hamman (for that 1 season) but made some equally bad signings like the jobs for the boys (Rush, Barnes, his son etc), Des Hamilton, Andreas Andersson, Lionel Perez...... falling out with Ginola,selling Ferdinand and replacing them sub standard players. Everyone goes on about him taking us to 2nd place in the CL, but that was with Keegans team. The season after was his team......the one where we performed so miserably, playing largely boring negative football and finishing 13th. Hardly his fault Ferdinand was sold though. i'm no apologist for dalglish but to underestimate the effect losing shearer had is to do him a massive disservice - was the best striker in europe at the time and would have affected everything maassively agreed. The point about Dalglish is that, at the time, he had a winning record better than even Alex Ferguson, he appeared to be a top, top appointment, of the calibre of Fergie, Wenger, Mourhinho etc now. He had also taken a great team on at Liverpool and improved them, and with flair players too. Exactly what we wanted here at the time. Then won the title with another club, a feat few have equalled. Won 3 manager of the year awards, and 4 titles in all. Saying he was crap or anything like questioning why he got the job, well the reason he got the job is for the reasons above. These hindsight merchants really make me laugh. Dalglish was an excellent appointment at the time, which is why I've never slagged Fat Fred for it. You are right in highlighting just why he looked such an attractive option back then. But his limitations became pretty apparent the longer he was away from Anfield. I think the dissent only set in with the consecutive appointments of Souness and Roeder, both terrible decisions from any angle. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 Shepherd didn't appoint Dalglish. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 The thing is, and correct me if im wrong, but Dalglish had to build up again from the bottom. Had Keegan not neglected, indeed complety stopped the reserve team, and i may be wrong but the youth team. Dalglish started putting all that together again. I think given more time, he would of done ok. The neglect of the non-first team side of things is perhaps overplayed a tad and get Dalglish off the hook a bit in the eyes of some for the way in which he dismantled Keegan's side unneccessarily. Dalglish was unlucky in some ways too though and wasn't really given enough time either. Just my take on it, anyway. Yeah, I'd go along with that, although there's no doubt having no reserve squad was a hindrance. Think he'd have done well given time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 dunno daglish set us back aswell He signed some very good players for us. He should've we were the 2nd best team in the country, one of the richest in the world and in the Champion's League. and those players still took us from that position to mid-table. given time i'm sure he'd have done better but he did a poor job short-term. The football we played under Dalglish was atrocious. He did make some good signings in Given, Solano, Hamman (for that 1 season) but made some equally bad signings like the jobs for the boys (Rush, Barnes, his son etc), Des Hamilton, Andreas Andersson, Lionel Perez...... falling out with Ginola,selling Ferdinand and replacing them sub standard players. Everyone goes on about him taking us to 2nd place in the CL, but that was with Keegans team. The season after was his team......the one where we performed so miserably, playing largely boring negative football and finishing 13th. Hardly his fault Ferdinand was sold though. i'm no apologist for dalglish but to underestimate the effect losing shearer had is to do him a massive disservice - was the best striker in europe at the time and would have affected everything maassively agreed. The point about Dalglish is that, at the time, he had a winning record better than even Alex Ferguson, he appeared to be a top, top appointment, of the calibre of Fergie, Wenger, Mourhinho etc now. He had also taken a great team on at Liverpool and improved them, and with flair players too. Exactly what we wanted here at the time. Then won the title with another club, a feat few have equalled. Won 3 manager of the year awards, and 4 titles in all. Saying he was crap or anything like questioning why he got the job, well the reason he got the job is for the reasons above. These hindsight merchants really make me laugh. Dalglish was an excellent appointment at the time, which is why I've never slagged Fat Fred for it. You are right in highlighting just why he looked such an attractive option back then. But his limitations became pretty apparent the longer he was away from Anfield. I think the dissent only set in with the consecutive appointments of Souness and Roeder, both terrible decisions from any angle. I hardly think a manager with all those honours could be termed as "limited" however I'm pleased that you acknowledge that for 7 out of 10 years you were quite happy. By the way, Roeder also came 7th in the league so make it 8 years out of 10. Hardly the sort of figures you would associate with a shite board. They say that Greggs pies are especially nice these days. I wonder how many company chairman buy them with company funds, despicable practice. Truly only shit chairman do such things. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredbob Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 The thing is, and correct me if im wrong, but Dalglish had to build up again from the bottom. Had Keegan not neglected, indeed complety stopped the reserve team, and i may be wrong but the youth team. Dalglish started putting all that together again. I think given more time, he would of done ok. The neglect of the non-first team side of things is perhaps overplayed a tad and get Dalglish off the hook a bit in the eyes of some for the way in which he dismantled Keegan's side unneccessarily. Dalglish was unlucky in some ways too though and wasn't really given enough time either. Just my take on it, anyway. Fair point but Keegans side was geared towarda a completely different style to any of Dlaglishs side. It the same problem with all incoming manager and probably something which ultimately effected Allardyce as well, he needed to imprint his own style and way of managing onto the team and that meant getting rid of players and in essence dismantling a very good side. To be fair to him, he did bring in some decent players, as well as Disco Des and ultimately i think he would of suceeded but in a completely different manner to Keegan. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 dunno daglish set us back aswell He signed some very good players for us. He should've we were the 2nd best team in the country, one of the richest in the world and in the Champion's League. and those players still took us from that position to mid-table. given time i'm sure he'd have done better but he did a poor job short-term. The football we played under Dalglish was atrocious. He did make some good signings in Given, Solano, Hamman (for that 1 season) but made some equally bad signings like the jobs for the boys (Rush, Barnes, his son etc), Des Hamilton, Andreas Andersson, Lionel Perez...... falling out with Ginola,selling Ferdinand and replacing them sub standard players. Everyone goes on about him taking us to 2nd place in the CL, but that was with Keegans team. The season after was his team......the one where we performed so miserably, playing largely boring negative football and finishing 13th. Hardly his fault Ferdinand was sold though. i'm no apologist for dalglish but to underestimate the effect losing shearer had is to do him a massive disservice - was the best striker in europe at the time and would have affected everything maassively agreed. The point about Dalglish is that, at the time, he had a winning record better than even Alex Ferguson, he appeared to be a top, top appointment, of the calibre of Fergie, Wenger, Mourhinho etc now. He had also taken a great team on at Liverpool and improved them, and with flair players too. Exactly what we wanted here at the time. Then won the title with another club, a feat few have equalled. Won 3 manager of the year awards, and 4 titles in all. Saying he was crap or anything like questioning why he got the job, well the reason he got the job is for the reasons above. These hindsight merchants really make me laugh. Dalglish was an excellent appointment at the time, which is why I've never slagged Fat Fred for it. You are right in highlighting just why he looked such an attractive option back then. But his limitations became pretty apparent the longer he was away from Anfield. I think the dissent only set in with the consecutive appointments of Souness and Roeder, both terrible decisions from any angle. I hardly think a manager with all those honours could be termed as "limited" however I'm pleased that you acknowledge that for 7 out of 10 years you were quite happy. By the way, Roeder also came 7th in the league so make it 8 years out of 10. Hardly the sort of figures you would associate with a shite board. They say that Greggs pies are especially nice these days. I wonder how many company chairman buy them with company funds, despicable practice. Truly only shit chairman do such things. You know you're the only one who mentions pies these days Leazes? If you dropped that side of your attack I'm sure a lot more people would agree with your posts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 dunno daglish set us back aswell He signed some very good players for us. He should've we were the 2nd best team in the country, one of the richest in the world and in the Champion's League. and those players still took us from that position to mid-table. given time i'm sure he'd have done better but he did a poor job short-term. The football we played under Dalglish was atrocious. He did make some good signings in Given, Solano, Hamman (for that 1 season) but made some equally bad signings like the jobs for the boys (Rush, Barnes, his son etc), Des Hamilton, Andreas Andersson, Lionel Perez...... falling out with Ginola,selling Ferdinand and replacing them sub standard players. Everyone goes on about him taking us to 2nd place in the CL, but that was with Keegans team. The season after was his team......the one where we performed so miserably, playing largely boring negative football and finishing 13th. Hardly his fault Ferdinand was sold though. i'm no apologist for dalglish but to underestimate the effect losing shearer had is to do him a massive disservice - was the best striker in europe at the time and would have affected everything maassively agreed. The point about Dalglish is that, at the time, he had a winning record better than even Alex Ferguson, he appeared to be a top, top appointment, of the calibre of Fergie, Wenger, Mourhinho etc now. He had also taken a great team on at Liverpool and improved them, and with flair players too. Exactly what we wanted here at the time. Then won the title with another club, a feat few have equalled. Won 3 manager of the year awards, and 4 titles in all. Saying he was crap or anything like questioning why he got the job, well the reason he got the job is for the reasons above. These hindsight merchants really make me laugh. Dalglish was an excellent appointment at the time, which is why I've never slagged Fat Fred for it. You are right in highlighting just why he looked such an attractive option back then. But his limitations became pretty apparent the longer he was away from Anfield. I think the dissent only set in with the consecutive appointments of Souness and Roeder, both terrible decisions from any angle. Spot on TRon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 If Leazes makes a valid point, I don't have a problem agreeing with it. The idea that the appointment of Souness or Roeder were well reasoned appointments I don't accept. Souness had taken Liverpool back years, and Blackburn were heading for relegation when we made our move. No one at that time still regarded Souness as a top manager. Roeder was appointed on the back of decent results as caretaker. At the time, Shepherd ruled out any overseas candidates because he probably didn't have a clue about football outside of England. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 dunno daglish set us back aswell He signed some very good players for us. He should've we were the 2nd best team in the country, one of the richest in the world and in the Champion's League. and those players still took us from that position to mid-table. given time i'm sure he'd have done better but he did a poor job short-term. The football we played under Dalglish was atrocious. He did make some good signings in Given, Solano, Hamman (for that 1 season) but made some equally bad signings like the jobs for the boys (Rush, Barnes, his son etc), Des Hamilton, Andreas Andersson, Lionel Perez...... falling out with Ginola,selling Ferdinand and replacing them sub standard players. Everyone goes on about him taking us to 2nd place in the CL, but that was with Keegans team. The season after was his team......the one where we performed so miserably, playing largely boring negative football and finishing 13th. Hardly his fault Ferdinand was sold though. i'm no apologist for dalglish but to underestimate the effect losing shearer had is to do him a massive disservice - was the best striker in europe at the time and would have affected everything maassively agreed. The point about Dalglish is that, at the time, he had a winning record better than even Alex Ferguson, he appeared to be a top, top appointment, of the calibre of Fergie, Wenger, Mourhinho etc now. He had also taken a great team on at Liverpool and improved them, and with flair players too. Exactly what we wanted here at the time. Then won the title with another club, a feat few have equalled. Won 3 manager of the year awards, and 4 titles in all. Saying he was crap or anything like questioning why he got the job, well the reason he got the job is for the reasons above. These hindsight merchants really make me laugh. Dalglish was an excellent appointment at the time, which is why I've never slagged Fat Fred for it. You are right in highlighting just why he looked such an attractive option back then. But his limitations became pretty apparent the longer he was away from Anfield. I think the dissent only set in with the consecutive appointments of Souness and Roeder, both terrible decisions from any angle. I hardly think a manager with all those honours could be termed as "limited" however I'm pleased that you acknowledge that for 7 out of 10 years you were quite happy. By the way, Roeder also came 7th in the league so make it 8 years out of 10. Hardly the sort of figures you would associate with a shite board. They say that Greggs pies are especially nice these days. I wonder how many company chairman buy them with company funds, despicable practice. Truly only shit chairman do such things. 8 out of 10 good seasons?! He took over a club that was 2nd in the league and his finishes were 13th, 13th, 11th, 11th, 4th, 3rd, 5th, 14th, 7th, 13th. Can you highlight the 8 good seasons? Here's my breakdown of it... 13th, 13th - 2 poor seasons, giving Dalglish over £10 million to spend in the Summer only to sack him 2 games into the season (draw home to Charlton and away to Chelsea) remains a strange decision, Gullit came in and didn't make any difference however 2 cup finals in this time was a highlight to two hard seasons. 11th, 11th - Gullit walks with the club in the relegation zone, Sir Bobby came in with little money to spend to try and save the club from relegation, he manages this and the club have 2 midtable finishes, nobody gets on his back because people have faith inhim to turn us around. 4th, 3rd, 5th - Robert and Bellamy come in and help turn the club around, lucky for us he didn't get his first choice pair of Zenden and Jeffers otherwise it could have been a different story , 2 great seasons followed however cracks were starting to show in the 3rd. 14th - The club decided not to replace Sir Bobby in the Summer and instead undermined him instead as well as announcing that this would be his last season at the club. Selling Speed behind his back, refusing to sign his first choice replacement in Carrick and insisting he signs Butt for around the same money amongst other things, Robson finally sacked and after getting turned down by the likes of O'Neill and Steve Bruce we end up turning to Graeme Souness, who falls out with some of our better players and stumbles to a 14th place finish. 7th - Instead of sacking Souness the club decide for some reason to back him with more cash than any other manager in the past, this doesn't work and the club go into free fall as well as being saddled with a mountain of debt, Souness gets sacked straight after the January transfer window shuts and Roeder steps in as caretaker manager before going on a good run and helping the club qualify for the Intertoto with a 7th pace finish. 13th - After getting turned down by O'Neill who wanted the England job towards the end of the previous season, Roeder is appointed full time manager and another poor season followed, promises of signings in the January transfer window failed to materialise and after scouting Crouch, Davies and Bale the only signing for the club was Gooch on loan, and the club picking up only 1 win in the final 11 matches with Roeder sacked with one game to go. The start under Shepherd was shite yet people were prepared to give him time to make his mark on the club and as Big Tron points out, the dissent only kicked in with Souness and Roeder because it was clear the club wasn't learning from their mistakes, the start under the new lot has been shite too however they will get my support (similar to Shepherd) and will get the benefit of the doubt while they're still finding their feet in the job, if in 3 years down the line they're still making the same mistakes then I'll be on their back too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 14th - The club decided not to replace Sir Bobby in the Summer and instead undermined him instead as well as announcing that this would be his last season at the club. Selling Speed behind his back, refusing to sign his first choice replacement in Carrick and insisting he signs Butt for around the same money amongst other things, Robson finally sacked and after getting turned down by the likes of O'Neill and Steve Bruce we end up turning to Graeme Souness, who falls out with some of our better players and stumbles to a 14th place finish. Thanks for reminding me - before we turned to Saviour Souness we actually approached and were turned down by Steve Bruce whose main qualification was that he was a geordie and his team played rotten football. Yet more evidence of Freddie Shepherd's football knowledge Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 dunno daglish set us back aswell He signed some very good players for us. He should've we were the 2nd best team in the country, one of the richest in the world and in the Champion's League. and those players still took us from that position to mid-table. given time i'm sure he'd have done better but he did a poor job short-term. The football we played under Dalglish was atrocious. He did make some good signings in Given, Solano, Hamman (for that 1 season) but made some equally bad signings like the jobs for the boys (Rush, Barnes, his son etc), Des Hamilton, Andreas Andersson, Lionel Perez...... falling out with Ginola,selling Ferdinand and replacing them sub standard players. Everyone goes on about him taking us to 2nd place in the CL, but that was with Keegans team. The season after was his team......the one where we performed so miserably, playing largely boring negative football and finishing 13th. Hardly his fault Ferdinand was sold though. i'm no apologist for dalglish but to underestimate the effect losing shearer had is to do him a massive disservice - was the best striker in europe at the time and would have affected everything maassively agreed. The point about Dalglish is that, at the time, he had a winning record better than even Alex Ferguson, he appeared to be a top, top appointment, of the calibre of Fergie, Wenger, Mourhinho etc now. He had also taken a great team on at Liverpool and improved them, and with flair players too. Exactly what we wanted here at the time. Then won the title with another club, a feat few have equalled. Won 3 manager of the year awards, and 4 titles in all. Saying he was crap or anything like questioning why he got the job, well the reason he got the job is for the reasons above. These hindsight merchants really make me laugh. Dalglish was an excellent appointment at the time, which is why I've never slagged Fat Fred for it. You are right in highlighting just why he looked such an attractive option back then. But his limitations became pretty apparent the longer he was away from Anfield. I think the dissent only set in with the consecutive appointments of Souness and Roeder, both terrible decisions from any angle. I hardly think a manager with all those honours could be termed as "limited" however I'm pleased that you acknowledge that for 7 out of 10 years you were quite happy. By the way, Roeder also came 7th in the league so make it 8 years out of 10. Hardly the sort of figures you would associate with a shite board. They say that Greggs pies are especially nice these days. I wonder how many company chairman buy them with company funds, despicable practice. Truly only shit chairman do such things. You know you're the only one who mentions pies these days Leazes? If you dropped that side of your attack I'm sure a lot more people would agree with your posts. maybe so, but they didn't agree with them at the time. Maybe some people could admit that being a fat bastard doesn't really have any relevance, although its all quite a lot of people said. Nothing whatsoever has changed in my comments about the old board BTW, but thats because they were based on facts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 Baggio, get your facts right, Roeder wasn't sacked, he resigned. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/n/newcastle_united/6630751.stm And Shepherd confirmed to BBC Sport on Sunday night that 51-year-old Roeder had resigned. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnypd Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 Baggio, get your facts right, Roeder wasn't sacked, he resigned. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/n/newcastle_united/6630751.stm And Shepherd confirmed to BBC Sport on Sunday night that 51-year-old Roeder had resigned. he was paid off it's in the accounts Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 he was paid off it's in the accounts You don't get paid off if you resign and we were told at the time that he'd resigned, the club website even confirmed that he'd resigned. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnypd Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 he was paid off it's in the accounts You don't get paid off if you resign and we were told at the time that he'd resigned, the club website even confirmed that he'd resigned. he got 1.1m for it. most likely shepherd said we'll give you this amount to resign, or we'll sack you and you can take your chances in court about having your contract paid out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts