Mort - "not looking to make one-off signings to appease fans"

[NE5]

 

whats wrong with "appeasing the crowd " anyway, would you prefer a half empty stadium like we got for years or the 50,000 crowds of the last decade

 

Its a measure of how well the club are doing and how attractive a proposition it is, wouldn't you agree ?

 

 

 

I don't have a problem if appeasing the fans is a by-product of a signing rather than the desired outcome, if we buy a player because he's going to improve the team then appease away.

 

 

 

 

things would be a lot more straightforward if you just admitted that you are totally motivated by personalites and not facts.

 

[Syrette]

I've got a phone video of Mort singing the Blaydon Races in Bambu last night, should I post it up?

 

Bought everyone a drink again.

You taking the piss?

 

Why would he do that?

 

Its in another thread.

[Lowndsy]

I've got a phone video of Mort singing the Blaydon Races in Bambu last night, should I post it up?

 

Bought everyone a drink again.

You taking the piss?

 

mort was in bambu singing stuff. sang eieieio aswell i hear

[Dr Venkman]

http://rapidshare.com/files/109358170/MortinBambu.wmv.html

 

haha, quality

[olliemort]

I've got a phone video of Mort singing the Blaydon Races in Bambu last night, should I post it up?

 

Bought everyone a drink again.

You taking the piss?

 

mort was in bambu singing stuff. sang eieieio aswell i hear

Class...gotta listen

[Mick]

 

things would be a lot more straightforward if you just admitted that you are totally motivated by personalites and not facts.

 

 

And that comes from the person who probably has 95% of his posts either in threads about the board or threads which are randomly hijacked into becoming threads about the board.  

[GeordieDazzler]

He was on the dance floor shortly after aswell, got to shake his hand. They didnt build up to him being there although it was obviously planned, I was just throwing some shapes on the dance floor and next thing you know Big Chrissy Mort was there.

[fredbob]

3 pages later & still no answer

 

I'll ask again, NE5, how much do you think we'll spend this summer?

 

Answer in £'s please

 

oh dear. 400m. I don;t know I'm not Chris Mort or Mike Ashley !!!

 

What a question  howay mate, keep it sensible 

 

It must be a good question because you refuse to answer it

 

what don't you understand about "how am I supposed to know"

 

 

 

You dont know how to give a good estimate of the clubs ambition?

 

yes I do, but I haven't seen the right awareness from the chairman yet, quite the opposite in fact

 

 

 

Whats that got to do with your estimate? In fact, if you dont think you've seen the "right awareness from the chairman", then your estimate must be pretty low....meaning you dont think the new boad will show much ambition? Yes? Is that right?

 

I'll put my Captain Obvious hat on here and have a guess that you dont want to estimate because it will then contradict all your "foresight" and "superior knowledge" you have of the club having been a fan for over 100 years and witnessing some "real s*** boards".

 

Thats pretty sad that you cant admit this.

 

 

 

you are thompers without the death threats

 

 

 

I am thompers without the death threat?? What are you on about?

 

Got to say thats one of the best diversions ive seen from you in a while.

 

I just dont understand why you dont answer the question, do you actually have something to lose from it?

 

 

[sicsfingeredmong]

I refer to Souness' final campaign in the hotseat.

 

 

First month of the premiership: no goals in the 'for' tally, and no wins on the board.

 

Owen, a proven goal scorer, as a signing - brought in to address the goal scoring drought, and afterall it was Souness who passed a piece of notepaper - with Owen's name on it - across the chairman's table. More of a signing out of neccessity, as opposed to some type of boadroom chartered gimick signing aimed at appeasing supporters.

[sicsfingeredmong]

When Bentley chooses Liverpool over us, have the board failed?

 

if it means they missed the boat in January ?

 

"we won't be buying any players unless they are for the future" ring any bells ............

 

 

 

I wouldn't say Woodgate was a signing for the future.

 

Seriously though the comments you're referring to were made under Allardyce and I don't think you can blame them for being reluctant to give him more money considering the poor job he was doing.

 

A mid-20's centrehalf with an innate reading of the game beyond his years, and as a straight out defensive package - ie. ability-wise - many a manager would plan to build their rearguard around such a player for a decade or thereabouts.

 

Sounds very much like a signing for the future, and at the same time getting the jump - by making a sudden & quick move in January - on any rival clubs looking to follow suit, especially in the ensuing Summer window when i daresay that many clubs, big clubs, would've been banging down the doors at a cash-strapped Elland Road..

 

 

[Baggio]

When Bentley chooses Liverpool over us, have the board failed?

 

if it means they missed the boat in January ?

 

"we won't be buying any players unless they are for the future" ring any bells ............

 

 

 

I wouldn't say Woodgate was a signing for the future.

 

Seriously though the comments you're referring to were made under Allardyce and I don't think you can blame them for being reluctant to give him more money considering the poor job he was doing.

 

A mid-20's centrehalf with an innate reading of the game beyond his years, and as a straight out defensive package - ie. ability-wise - many a manager would plan to build their rearguard around such a player for a decade or thereabouts.

 

Sounds very much like a signing for the future, and at the same time getting the jump - by making a sudden & quick move in January - on any rival clubs looking to follow suit, especially in the ensuing Summer window when i daresay that many clubs, big clubs, would've been banging down the doors at a cash-strapped Elland Road..

 

 

 

I was talking about the January just gone.

[STM]

BTW, i was happy to hear we were going for Woodgate because that sets a decent bar of the standard we want.

 

If we are signing players of his calibre and above i will be delighted.

[lovejoy]

I don't know what this argument is about, really.

 

The last lot had their chance and fluffed it. The failure to capitalise on the wonderful work done by Sir Bobby, coupled with a series of poor managerial appointments, led to a period of decline from which we only now have a chance of emerging because of a new broom in the boardroom and investment sufficient to clear some of the debts Shepherd had built up. He's history. And no one in their right mind is shedding any tears over the fact.

 

The new lot are still getting settled in. They seem to have got all their key people in place and are apparently thinking long-term, which has to be welcome news to anyone who cares for the future of the club. If it all means leaving behind knee-jerk, sell-a-season-ticket signings (or the hype of attempted signings such as Rooney or Ronaldinho) in favour of a sustained, intelligent and realistic period of squad-building and investment under the right manager, then that is good news. I'm more optimistic right now than I have been since just before we lost to Partizan, five long years ago.

 

It's dumb to rant and roar about the new lot before they've even got through their first proper transfer window. So far they're doing all right.

 

good post.

 

agree with all of that

 

the last lot had their chance and fluffed it  ?

 

Previously I thought you knew your stuff mate.

 

Respect for your opinions disintegrated after that I'm afraid.

 

 

 

i think they did fluff it in the grand scheme of things, and i think they accounts that have now come to light would support that notion.

 

i also stand by what i have always said in that i would have rather had shepherd in than many other chairmen who are in the premiership today, phil gartside and the tools from birmingham to name just 2, but that doesnt mean i cant criticise decisions he made here.

 

he always backed his managers, which is correct and we were all very happy for him to do so, regardless of what is said now, but the state of the accounts show he did it to the point of neglect, and results show he did it with the wrong managers.

 

i think him fluffing it is a pretty fair assumption, he balls'ed it up in the grand scheme of things and, whats more, even he will know that.

 

the new regime deserve a chance and shouldnt be chasitised for what they may or may not do in their first full summer at the helm, we'll have to see.

 

to sum up, the last lot ha dtheir chance, and fluffed it, time for someone else to have a go.

 

and as for your respect for my opinions disintergrating, is that because i have agreed with ozzie or because i have agreed with what he said? either way, i couldnt realy give a shite to be honest with you.

[Dave]

Card is marked.

[NE5]

I refer to Souness' final campaign in the hotseat.

 

 

First month of the premiership: no goals in the 'for' tally, and no wins on the board.

 

Owen, a proven goal scorer, as a signing - brought in to address the goal scoring drought, and afterall it was Souness who passed a piece of notepaper - with Owen's name on it - across the chairman's table. More of a signing out of neccessity, as opposed to some type of boadroom chartered gimick signing aimed at appeasing supporters.

 

exactly. Some people also have claimed him to be "shepherd's signing" ..... despite being aware of the above scenario.

 

Even Souness said this himself at Owen's press conference, then said later he had wanted someone else. 

 

How anybody can say that replacing Alan Shearer ie forthcoming retirement, and having also lost Craig Bellamy, isn't a necessity is absolutely staggering.

 

 

[Guest alex]

By the way, I'm not saying Owen was a trophy/gimmick/appeasement signing and I was delighted when we got him. I was just pointing out that that was who I thought Mort might have been on about.

[NE5]

When Bentley chooses Liverpool over us, have the board failed?

 

if it means they missed the boat in January ?

 

"we won't be buying any players unless they are for the future" ring any bells ............

 

 

 

I wouldn't say Woodgate was a signing for the future.

 

Seriously though the comments you're referring to were made under Allardyce and I don't think you can blame them for being reluctant to give him more money considering the poor job he was doing.

 

A mid-20's centrehalf with an innate reading of the game beyond his years, and as a straight out defensive package - ie. ability-wise - many a manager would plan to build their rearguard around such a player for a decade or thereabouts.

 

Sounds very much like a signing for the future, and at the same time getting the jump - by making a sudden & quick move in January - on any rival clubs looking to follow suit, especially in the ensuing Summer window when i daresay that many clubs, big clubs, would've been banging down the doors at a cash-strapped Elland Road..

 

 

Woodgate in January 2003 wasn't a signing for the future, [we won't even mention getting in first before all our rivals at the end of the season in question] but 2 months ago he would have been a good buy ?

 

Good one that .

 

 

[NE5]

By the way, I'm not saying Owen was a trophy/gimmick/appeasement signing and I was delighted when we got him. I was just pointing out that that was who I thought Mort might have been on about.

 

Well, if it was, it just what a load of bollocks he is spouting but it doesn't stop a lot of people agreeing with him.

 

 

[Shearergol]

Owen was a great signing. It was only when he got injured so often for us that fans started to claim he shouldn't have been signed in the first place (apart from Wullie, who hated him from the start).

[Dave]

I don't think anyone particularly hated Owen, it was more the 'all our eggs in one very fragile basket' nature of the transfer that worried people.

[Guest alex]

By the way, I'm not saying Owen was a trophy/gimmick/appeasement signing and I was delighted when we got him. I was just pointing out that that was who I thought Mort might have been on about.

 

Well, if it was, it just what a load of bollocks he is spouting but it doesn't stop a lot of people agreeing with him.

 

 

I quite like Mort from what I've seen / heard from him so far in general. I'm reserving judgement of course as it's early days. I've already said though that I thought this was just a bit of crappy point-scoring aimed at the previous regime and (in particular) Shepherd. No real need and it serves no real purpose other than to make himself look good. Action not words, as I said before.

[Shearergol]

I don't think anyone particularly hated Owen, it was more the 'all our eggs in one very fragile basket' nature of the transfer that worried people.

 

I think Wullie did

[Baggio]

I refer to Souness' final campaign in the hotseat.

 

 

First month of the premiership: no goals in the 'for' tally, and no wins on the board.

 

Owen, a proven goal scorer, as a signing - brought in to address the goal scoring drought, and afterall it was Souness who passed a piece of notepaper - with Owen's name on it - across the chairman's table. More of a signing out of neccessity, as opposed to some type of boadroom chartered gimick signing aimed at appeasing supporters.

 

exactly. Some people also have claimed him to be "shepherd's signing" ..... despite being aware of the above scenario.

 

Even Souness said this himself at Owen's press conference, then said later he had wanted someone else. 

 

How anybody can say that replacing Alan Shearer ie forthcoming retirement, and having also lost Craig Bellamy, isn't a necessity is absolutely staggering.

 

 

 

Perhaps Souness claimed it was his signing at the time because he didn't want to rock the boat? Like you said was the reason Keegan claimed he had money to spend in January but chose not to spend it.

[NE5]

I don't know what this argument is about, really.

 

The last lot had their chance and fluffed it. The failure to capitalise on the wonderful work done by Sir Bobby, coupled with a series of poor managerial appointments, led to a period of decline from which we only now have a chance of emerging because of a new broom in the boardroom and investment sufficient to clear some of the debts Shepherd had built up. He's history. And no one in their right mind is shedding any tears over the fact.

 

The new lot are still getting settled in. They seem to have got all their key people in place and are apparently thinking long-term, which has to be welcome news to anyone who cares for the future of the club. If it all means leaving behind knee-jerk, sell-a-season-ticket signings (or the hype of attempted signings such as Rooney or Ronaldinho) in favour of a sustained, intelligent and realistic period of squad-building and investment under the right manager, then that is good news. I'm more optimistic right now than I have been since just before we lost to Partizan, five long years ago.

 

It's dumb to rant and roar about the new lot before they've even got through their first proper transfer window. So far they're doing all right.

 

good post.

 

agree with all of that

 

the last lot had their chance and fluffed it  ?

 

Previously I thought you knew your stuff mate.

 

Respect for your opinions disintegrated after that I'm afraid.

 

 

 

i think they did fluff it in the grand scheme of things, and i think they accounts that have now come to light would support that notion.

 

i also stand by what i have always said in that i would have rather had shepherd in than many other chairmen who are in the premiership today, phil gartside and the tools from birmingham to name just 2, but that doesnt mean i cant criticise decisions he made here.

 

he always backed his managers, which is correct and we were all very happy for him to do so, regardless of what is said now, but the state of the accounts show he did it to the point of neglect, and results show he did it with the wrong managers.

 

i think him fluffing it is a pretty fair assumption, he balls'ed it up in the grand scheme of things and, whats more, even he will know that.

 

the new regime deserve a chance and shouldnt be chasitised for what they may or may not do in their first full summer at the helm, we'll have to see.

 

to sum up, the last lot ha dtheir chance, and fluffed it, time for someone else to have a go.

 

and as for your respect for my opinions disintergrating, is that because i have agreed with ozzie or because i have agreed with what he said? either way, i couldnt realy give a shite to be honest with you.

 

Took a bit time to find this ? It's nowt to do with agreeing with Ozzie or anybody.

 

I just don't think our record over the decade as a whole, and leaving the club in a position where a rich man with no connection to the region found it attractive, is fluffing it. Although there is no defence for appointing Souness.

 

 

 

 

[Guest alex]

Or Roeder imo.