The official Fat Fred Out campaign

[Guest BooBoo]

NE5's defence of Shepherd looks more comical with each passing post.

 

 

When influential fanzines such as The Mag and True Faith, back such a "sack the board" uprising then don't underestimate how much they can sway public opinion.

[Baggio]

HTL

If you had looked back at the recent posts I have answered your question re previous Managers.

I note you do not respond to the timing of the Robson sacking and the fact it was done very few games into the season and no successor had been lined up. As for Roeder I base that on the image he portrays, the fact his Assistant Manager was sacked, no statement from Roeder. The reserve team Manager leaves, no statement from Roeder. The poor use of the transfer window. You know as well as I do, and you do not have to be an insider, that Roeder will not upset the hand that so unexpectedly appointed him.m Thats my opinion, you disagree, fair enough.

What do you get from the Board is:

Appointing Robson who the fans loved and thensadly botching his departure

Appointing Gullit and then really not fully backing him because he had the temerity in their eyes to drop Shearer.

Appoiinting Dalglish and then the timing of the sacking left a lot to be desired..

 

I would give them the benefit of the doubt after Dalglish/Gullit/Robson. 2 failures, 1 success.

However after Souness and then Roeder, do me  a favour.

Whether a Chairman has been successful is entirely dependant on success or otherwise on the pitch. Sir John Hall was, Freddie Shepherd is not.

You are playing devils advocate here because even your unsubstantiated support of Shepherd must have taken a considerable knock by his last two appoinments.

 

 

more successful, with a manager chosen and appointed by Hall Jnr, Shepherd and Fletcher and not himself .... how does that grab you ?

 

Didn't Keegan actually suggest to Freddie Fletcher that he take control of the club for a few years and receive a percentage of the revenue if the club was successful?

 

Keegan's offer was as a Director of Football type role but the board presumed he meant as manager, so offered him that job instead a few months later iirc (I read it years ago so it might not be 100% accurate)

[NE5]

NE5's defence of Shepherd looks more comical with each passing post.

 

 

When influential fanzines such as The Mag and True Faith, back such a "sack the board" uprising then don't underestimate how much they can sway public opinion.

 

your lack of reading ability continues to amuse.

 

I am not backing anybody, simply stating facts, if they don't suit your "opinion" or the view you wish to portray, tough luck really.

 

I am not aware the Mag is conducting a Shepherd Out campaign, or mag writers en-block with the support of The Mag, perhaps you could show me where this is so ?

 

 

[NE5]

HTL

If you had looked back at the recent posts I have answered your question re previous Managers.

I note you do not respond to the timing of the Robson sacking and the fact it was done very few games into the season and no successor had been lined up. As for Roeder I base that on the image he portrays, the fact his Assistant Manager was sacked, no statement from Roeder. The reserve team Manager leaves, no statement from Roeder. The poor use of the transfer window. You know as well as I do, and you do not have to be an insider, that Roeder will not upset the hand that so unexpectedly appointed him.m Thats my opinion, you disagree, fair enough.

What do you get from the Board is:

Appointing Robson who the fans loved and thensadly botching his departure

Appointing Gullit and then really not fully backing him because he had the temerity in their eyes to drop Shearer.

Appoiinting Dalglish and then the timing of the sacking left a lot to be desired..

 

I would give them the benefit of the doubt after Dalglish/Gullit/Robson. 2 failures, 1 success.

However after Souness and then Roeder, do me  a favour.

Whether a Chairman has been successful is entirely dependant on success or otherwise on the pitch. Sir John Hall was, Freddie Shepherd is not.

You are playing devils advocate here because even your unsubstantiated support of Shepherd must have taken a considerable knock by his last two appoinments.

 

 

more successful, with a manager chosen and appointed by Hall Jnr, Shepherd and Fletcher and not himself .... how does that grab you ?

 

Didn't Keegan actually suggest to Freddie Fletcher that he take control of the club for a few years and receive a percentage of the revenue if the club was successful?

 

Keegan's offer was as a Director of Football type role but the board presumed he meant as manager, so offered him that job instead a few months later iirc (I read it years ago so it might not be 100% accurate)

 

not sure of this, I don't think I have read that anywhere, Keegan just says he was the manager, given the job to stay up and then offered a 3 year contract in the summer. On both occasions - especially the first one - he was chosen, installed and persuaded to take the job by Hall Jnr, Shepherd and Fletcher. He emphasises that SJH didn't want to replace Ardiles but was given no choice by the other 3.

 

 

[Baggio]

HTL

If you had looked back at the recent posts I have answered your question re previous Managers.

I note you do not respond to the timing of the Robson sacking and the fact it was done very few games into the season and no successor had been lined up. As for Roeder I base that on the image he portrays, the fact his Assistant Manager was sacked, no statement from Roeder. The reserve team Manager leaves, no statement from Roeder. The poor use of the transfer window. You know as well as I do, and you do not have to be an insider, that Roeder will not upset the hand that so unexpectedly appointed him.m Thats my opinion, you disagree, fair enough.

What do you get from the Board is:

Appointing Robson who the fans loved and thensadly botching his departure

Appointing Gullit and then really not fully backing him because he had the temerity in their eyes to drop Shearer.

Appoiinting Dalglish and then the timing of the sacking left a lot to be desired..

 

I would give them the benefit of the doubt after Dalglish/Gullit/Robson. 2 failures, 1 success.

However after Souness and then Roeder, do me  a favour.

Whether a Chairman has been successful is entirely dependant on success or otherwise on the pitch. Sir John Hall was, Freddie Shepherd is not.

You are playing devils advocate here because even your unsubstantiated support of Shepherd must have taken a considerable knock by his last two appoinments.

 

 

more successful, with a manager chosen and appointed by Hall Jnr, Shepherd and Fletcher and not himself .... how does that grab you ?

 

Didn't Keegan actually suggest to Freddie Fletcher that he take control of the club for a few years and receive a percentage of the revenue if the club was successful?

 

Keegan's offer was as a Director of Football type role but the board presumed he meant as manager, so offered him that job instead a few months later iirc (I read it years ago so it might not be 100% accurate)

 

not sure of this, I don't think I have read that anywhere, Keegan just says he was the manager, given the job to stay up and then offered a 3 year contract in the summer. On both occasions - especially the first one - he was chosen, installed and persuaded to take the job by Hall Jnr, Shepherd and Fletcher. He emphasises that SJH didn't want to replace Ardiles but was given no choice by the other 3.

 

 

 

Just double checked, it's on page 267 if you're interested.

 

[NE5]

HTL

If you had looked back at the recent posts I have answered your question re previous Managers.

I note you do not respond to the timing of the Robson sacking and the fact it was done very few games into the season and no successor had been lined up. As for Roeder I base that on the image he portrays, the fact his Assistant Manager was sacked, no statement from Roeder. The reserve team Manager leaves, no statement from Roeder. The poor use of the transfer window. You know as well as I do, and you do not have to be an insider, that Roeder will not upset the hand that so unexpectedly appointed him.m Thats my opinion, you disagree, fair enough.

What do you get from the Board is:

Appointing Robson who the fans loved and thensadly botching his departure

Appointing Gullit and then really not fully backing him because he had the temerity in their eyes to drop Shearer.

Appoiinting Dalglish and then the timing of the sacking left a lot to be desired..

 

I would give them the benefit of the doubt after Dalglish/Gullit/Robson. 2 failures, 1 success.

However after Souness and then Roeder, do me  a favour.

Whether a Chairman has been successful is entirely dependant on success or otherwise on the pitch. Sir John Hall was, Freddie Shepherd is not.

You are playing devils advocate here because even your unsubstantiated support of Shepherd must have taken a considerable knock by his last two appoinments.

 

 

more successful, with a manager chosen and appointed by Hall Jnr, Shepherd and Fletcher and not himself .... how does that grab you ?

 

Didn't Keegan actually suggest to Freddie Fletcher that he take control of the club for a few years and receive a percentage of the revenue if the club was successful?

 

Keegan's offer was as a Director of Football type role but the board presumed he meant as manager, so offered him that job instead a few months later iirc (I read it years ago so it might not be 100% accurate)

 

not sure of this, I don't think I have read that anywhere, Keegan just says he was the manager, given the job to stay up and then offered a 3 year contract in the summer. On both occasions - especially the first one - he was chosen, installed and persuaded to take the job by Hall Jnr, Shepherd and Fletcher. He emphasises that SJH didn't want to replace Ardiles but was given no choice by the other 3.

 

 

 

Just double checked, it's on page 267 if you're interested.

 

 

I don't see the relevance in your point about a director of football,

 

anyway

 

Page 267 in mine is about signing Andy Cole...I'm not disputing the bit about him saying to Fletcher to take revenue - because I think I have seen that somewhere when I think about it, I have nothing about him being a director of football, however my copy says the following :

 

on 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 on the Wednesday. When it came to the crunch, it was Fletcher, Shepherd and Douglas Hall who wanted me to replace Ossie Ardiles".

 

Further down the page he says about a meeting they had " I was not very impressed with him (Hall Snr). It was obvious that he wasn't comfortable with my proposed appointment. I could understand why, because he has put his name to an article by Bob Cass in the Mail on Sunday three days earlier which claimed that ossie's job was safe, and I knew that his family had built up a strong friendship with Ossie's. I was also concerned that neither Mallinger nor Forbes was present. Whatever Sir John thought about the situation he was in the minority. The other 3 laid 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 to me 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 money would be available to me for players. He told me that there would be 1m straight away and a further million if it was required. That was what I wanted to hear. It might not sound like a lot of money these days, but then I felt it was as much as I needed"

 

Further down he says "I must have been the only manager to be appointed without the knowledge of the chairman and vice chairman, neither of whom was informed until an hour before the press conference at which the news was made public. And even the future chairman - the man with the money - indicated that it was his colleagues rather than himself who wanted me."

 

A few pages later, regarding his walk out after the Swindon match, on page 213, he says "What I did not know what that Sir John hall was playing political games with the other directors, Bob Young, George Forbes, Peter Mallinger and Gordon McKeag, in the matter of funds he had promised me. He was quite prepared to put in his share of the money I needed, which amounted to 40 per cent, but he told the others that  they had to find the

remaining 60 per cent. That was not fair, because none of them had been given a say in my appointment, or even known about it, let alone an  opportunity to turn down or agree to my original demands. As far as I was concerned, it wasn't their problem and I never held anything against Forbes and Mallinger over the issue.

 

All this was going on as a sideshow to the relegation battle and I decided that enough was enough. I filled Terry {Mac} in on the details and told him that we had no alternative but to go. Sir John had to keep his promises, regardless of his problems with the others and how much they might or might not put in."

 

Later, on pagef 214, he says "The player I wanted, Darren McDonough from Luton, was only going to cost £100,000,  a fraction of the 1m or even the 2m pledged to me to get the club out of trouble"

 

Then, after the Swindon game, while driving out of the ground with Terry (Mac) - " I'm finished here and none of you know. I was furious, not with Forbes, Mallinger or the other directors, but with Sir John Hall".

 

And - in the summer - who went to Spain to persuade Keegan to sign a proper contract ?

 

Fletcher, Hall Jnr and Shepherd . Keegan says this on page 220.

 

 

[Baggio]

HTL

If you had looked back at the recent posts I have answered your question re previous Managers.

I note you do not respond to the timing of the Robson sacking and the fact it was done very few games into the season and no successor had been lined up. As for Roeder I base that on the image he portrays, the fact his Assistant Manager was sacked, no statement from Roeder. The reserve team Manager leaves, no statement from Roeder. The poor use of the transfer window. You know as well as I do, and you do not have to be an insider, that Roeder will not upset the hand that so unexpectedly appointed him.m Thats my opinion, you disagree, fair enough.

What do you get from the Board is:

Appointing Robson who the fans loved and thensadly botching his departure

Appointing Gullit and then really not fully backing him because he had the temerity in their eyes to drop Shearer.

Appoiinting Dalglish and then the timing of the sacking left a lot to be desired..

 

I would give them the benefit of the doubt after Dalglish/Gullit/Robson. 2 failures, 1 success.

However after Souness and then Roeder, do me  a favour.

Whether a Chairman has been successful is entirely dependant on success or otherwise on the pitch. Sir John Hall was, Freddie Shepherd is not.

You are playing devils advocate here because even your unsubstantiated support of Shepherd must have taken a considerable knock by his last two appoinments.

 

 

more successful, with a manager chosen and appointed by Hall Jnr, Shepherd and Fletcher and not himself .... how does that grab you ?

 

Didn't Keegan actually suggest to Freddie Fletcher that he take control of the club for a few years and receive a percentage of the revenue if the club was successful?

 

Keegan's offer was as a Director of Football type role but the board presumed he meant as manager, so offered him that job instead a few months later iirc (I read it years ago so it might not be 100% accurate)

 

not sure of this, I don't think I have read that anywhere, Keegan just says he was the manager, given the job to stay up and then offered a 3 year contract in the summer. On both occasions - especially the first one - he was chosen, installed and persuaded to take the job by Hall Jnr, Shepherd and Fletcher. He emphasises that SJH didn't want to replace Ardiles but was given no choice by the other 3.

 

 

 

Just double checked, it's on page 267 if you're interested.

 

 

I don't see the relevance in your point about a director of football, anyway

 

Page 267 in mine is about signing Andy Cole...I'm not disputing the bit about him saying to Fletcher to take revenue - because I think I have seen that somewhere when I think about it, I have nothing about him being a director of football, however my copy says the following :

 

on 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 on the Wednesday. When it came to the crunch, it was Fletcher, Shepherd and Douglas Hall who wanted me to replace Ossie Ardiles".

 

And - in the summer - who went to Spain to persuade Keegan to sign a proper contract ?

 

Fletcher, Hall Jnr and Shepherd . Keegan says this on page 220.

 

 

 

My point is that the appointment of Keegan as manager was down to crossed wires by the board after believing he'd put himself forward for the job, rather than head hunting what they thought was the best man for the job. If Keegan hadn't put the suggestion to Freddie Fletcher then I doubt they would have even considered him for the job tbh.

 

To quote Keegan...

 

"If Sir John doesn't want the club', I said, 'ask him to give it to me for two or three years in return for a share of whatever I build up.' In hindsight it was a stupid thing to say. Newcastle was between £6 million and £8 million in debt and I doubt I could have handled it. But granted the opportunity I'd have given it my best shot. My idea then was to run the club, not manage it, but this conversation must have stuck in Freddie's (Fletcher) mind, and within six months I was meeting him again to talk about the managers job."

 

Shepherd was only small fry at the club at the time anyway, giving him credit for appointing Keegan would be similar to giving Bruce Shepherd credit for appointing Robson.

 

As for the bit about signing a proper contract, they actually offered Keegan a 3 year contract at the beginning, he asked what would happen to the club if they were relegated and he was told they would probably fold, Keegan replied "Then what the hell is the point in offering me a three-year contract"?! He had to convince them that it was a poor business decision to offer him such a contract when the club could go under.

[NE5]

HTL

If you had looked back at the recent posts I have answered your question re previous Managers.

I note you do not respond to the timing of the Robson sacking and the fact it was done very few games into the season and no successor had been lined up. As for Roeder I base that on the image he portrays, the fact his Assistant Manager was sacked, no statement from Roeder. The reserve team Manager leaves, no statement from Roeder. The poor use of the transfer window. You know as well as I do, and you do not have to be an insider, that Roeder will not upset the hand that so unexpectedly appointed him.m Thats my opinion, you disagree, fair enough.

What do you get from the Board is:

Appointing Robson who the fans loved and thensadly botching his departure

Appointing Gullit and then really not fully backing him because he had the temerity in their eyes to drop Shearer.

Appoiinting Dalglish and then the timing of the sacking left a lot to be desired..

 

I would give them the benefit of the doubt after Dalglish/Gullit/Robson. 2 failures, 1 success.

However after Souness and then Roeder, do me  a favour.

Whether a Chairman has been successful is entirely dependant on success or otherwise on the pitch. Sir John Hall was, Freddie Shepherd is not.

You are playing devils advocate here because even your unsubstantiated support of Shepherd must have taken a considerable knock by his last two appoinments.

 

 

more successful, with a manager chosen and appointed by Hall Jnr, Shepherd and Fletcher and not himself .... how does that grab you ?

 

Didn't Keegan actually suggest to Freddie Fletcher that he take control of the club for a few years and receive a percentage of the revenue if the club was successful?

 

Keegan's offer was as a Director of Football type role but the board presumed he meant as manager, so offered him that job instead a few months later iirc (I read it years ago so it might not be 100% accurate)

 

not sure of this, I don't think I have read that anywhere, Keegan just says he was the manager, given the job to stay up and then offered a 3 year contract in the summer. On both occasions - especially the first one - he was chosen, installed and persuaded to take the job by Hall Jnr, Shepherd and Fletcher. He emphasises that SJH didn't want to replace Ardiles but was given no choice by the other 3.

 

 

 

Just double checked, it's on page 267 if you're interested.

 

 

I don't see the relevance in your point about a director of football, anyway

 

Page 267 in mine is about signing Andy Cole...I'm not disputing the bit about him saying to Fletcher to take revenue - because I think I have seen that somewhere when I think about it, I have nothing about him being a director of football, however my copy says the following :

 

on 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 on the Wednesday. When it came to the crunch, it was Fletcher, Shepherd and Douglas Hall who wanted me to replace Ossie Ardiles".

 

And - in the summer - who went to Spain to persuade Keegan to sign a proper contract ?

 

Fletcher, Hall Jnr and Shepherd . Keegan says this on page 220.

 

 

 

My point is that the appointment of Keegan as manager was down to crossed wires by the board after believing he'd put himself forward for the job, rather than head hunting what they thought was the best man for the job. If Keegan hadn't put the suggestion to Freddie Fletcher then I doubt they would have even considered him for the job tbh.

 

To quote Keegan...

 

"If Sir John doesn't want the club', I said, 'ask him to give it to me for two or three years in return for a share of whatever I build up.' In hindsight it was a stupid thing to say. Newcastle was between £6 million and £8 million in debt and I doubt I could have handled it. But granted the opportunity I'd have given it my best shot. My idea then was to run the club, not manage it, but this conversation must have stuck in Freddie's mind, and within six months I was meeting him again to talk about the managers job."

 

Shepherd was only small fry at the club at the time anyway, giving him credit for appointing Keegan would be similar to giving Bruce Shepherd credit for appointing Robson.

 

As for the bit about signing a proper contract, they actually offered Keegan a 3 year contract at the beginning, he asked what would happen to the club if they were relegated and he was told they would probably fold, Keegan replied "Then what the hell is the point in offering me a three-year contract"?! He had to convince them that it was a poor business decision to offer him such a contract when the club could go under.

 

Yes I recall those quotes, I know they are correct. As it says though, it was for the managers job, and nothing else.

 

I'm not purposely trying to castigate or give credit to anyone, but its clear you won't give any credit to Shepherd for anything. He was a big player in the takeover of the club, even if he doesn't have the shares he has now, and as Keegan says, instrumental in appointing him, and he should know.

 

 

[Baggio]

I'm not purposely trying to castigate or give credit to anyone, but its clear you won't give any credit to Shepherd for anything. He was a big player in the takeover of the club, even if he doesn't have the shares he has now, and as Keegan says, instrumental in appointing him, and he should know.

 

Actually, I'm all for giving credit where its due. Examples such as the stadium extension, appointing Robson and backing him with the clubs money to get us some great nights of football in the Champions League, all the credit in the World to Shepherd for that.

 

However (IMO) he doesn't deserve the credit you're giving him for the appointment of Keegan, but that's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

[OzzieMandias]

You can never guarantee that the manager you appoint is going to turn out to be good or bad, but you can do a lot more than we seem to do to find out beforehand.

 

Truth.

[Guest Knightrider]

Let me get this right, KK offered to take over the club as a Chairman/owner on behalf of the Halls if they didn't want it and he also knocked back a three year contract because he didn't want the club to spend money they never had?

 

I've always known KK was one of us in his own way but those quotes just confirm how special he was, how many managers would take advantage of a few wet behind the ears businessmen and take their money? One former Toon manager springs to mind...

 

As for his "give the club to me then" comments, wow, that's some gesture and shows you how much he must have loved this club and was desperate to help out/get it back up and running.

 

We could do with a man like that right now on board...

 

 

[OzzieMandias]

 

 

the board ... have made it quite obvious they are prepared to pay for success.

 

 

The board haven't paid for anything. Quite the reverse, they've made fortunes.

 

And it's a laugh to say they've been "prepared to pay for success"?

 

What success? They got ripped off. Or rather, we did.

[Howaythelads]

 

 

the board ... have made it quite obvious they are prepared to pay for success.

 

 

The board haven't paid for anything. Quite the reverse, they've made fortunes.

 

And it's a laugh to say they've been "prepared to pay for success"?

 

What success? They got ripped off. Or rather, we did.

 

You think they have to spend money bringing in players do you?

[Guest ToonFanNorway]

Let me get this right, KK offered to take over the club as a Chairman/owner on behalf of the Halls if they didn't want it and he also knocked back a three year contract because he didn't want the club to spend money they never had?

 

I've always known KK was one of us in his own way but those quotes just confirm how special he was, how many managers would take advantage of a few wet behind the ears businessmen and take their money? One former Toon manager springs to mind...

 

As for his "give the club to me then" comments, wow, that's some gesture and shows you how much he must have loved this club and was desperate to help out/get it back up and running.

 

We could do with a man like that right now on board...

 

 

Hit the nail on the head !!!

Why did KK walk away???

I will tell you, because hes the man who loves the toon and wasnt prepared to have the HALLS the SHEPHERDS take control of his TEAM, which im sad to say but they have done ever since KK left !!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Every Manager since has been governed by the Fat F**K and Mr Hall(IN GIBRALTER)

 

Slag me off HTT and all the Admins But im right for f**ks sake admit the TOON are in the S**t

[OzzieMandias]

 

 

the board ... have made it quite obvious they are prepared to pay for success.

 

 

The board haven't paid for anything. Quite the reverse, they've made fortunes.

 

And it's a laugh to say they've been "prepared to pay for success"?

 

What success? They got ripped off. Or rather, we did.

 

You think they have to spend money bringing in players do you?

 

No, just that it's dumb to imagine (or present) them as philanthropic donors, selflessly turning out their pockets to back the manager. They pay themselves very handsomely for what they do, even though in some cases (Dodgy Doug the prime example) it's difficult to work out exactly what that might be.

 

Meanwhile, they're presiding over steadily diminishing returns.

[Howaythelads]

 

 

the board ... have made it quite obvious they are prepared to pay for success.

 

 

The board haven't paid for anything. Quite the reverse, they've made fortunes.

 

And it's a laugh to say they've been "prepared to pay for success"?

 

What success? They got ripped off. Or rather, we did.

 

You think they have to spend money bringing in players do you?

 

No, just that it's dumb to imagine (or present) them as philanthropic donors, selflessly turning out their pockets to back the manager. They pay themselves very handsomely for what they do, even though in some cases (Dodgy Doug the prime example) it's difficult to work out exactly what that might be.

 

Meanwhile, they're presiding over steadily diminishing returns.

 

Nobody is saying that or suggesting that. You just like to spin it that way for some reason.

[OzzieMandias]

 

 

the board ... have made it quite obvious they are prepared to pay for success.

 

 

The board haven't paid for anything. Quite the reverse, they've made fortunes.

 

And it's a laugh to say they've been "prepared to pay for success"?

 

What success? They got ripped off. Or rather, we did.

 

You think they have to spend money bringing in players do you?

 

No, just that it's dumb to imagine (or present) them as philanthropic donors, selflessly turning out their pockets to back the manager. They pay themselves very handsomely for what they do, even though in some cases (Dodgy Doug the prime example) it's difficult to work out exactly what that might be.

 

Meanwhile, they're presiding over steadily diminishing returns.

 

Nobody is saying that or suggesting that. You just like to spin it that way for some reason.

 

Well you can read the quote that started this discussion your way, and I'll read what it actually says.

[Howaythelads]

 

 

the board ... have made it quite obvious they are prepared to pay for success.

 

 

The board haven't paid for anything. Quite the reverse, they've made fortunes.

 

And it's a laugh to say they've been "prepared to pay for success"?

 

What success? They got ripped off. Or rather, we did.

 

You think they have to spend money bringing in players do you?

 

No, just that it's dumb to imagine (or present) them as philanthropic donors, selflessly turning out their pockets to back the manager. They pay themselves very handsomely for what they do, even though in some cases (Dodgy Doug the prime example) it's difficult to work out exactly what that might be.

 

Meanwhile, they're presiding over steadily diminishing returns.

 

Nobody is saying that or suggesting that. You just like to spin it that way for some reason.

 

Well you can read the quote that started this discussion your way, and I'll read what it actually says.

 

Thought you were on the verge there of a proper exchange of posts........

[OzzieMandias]

It's a measure of the merits of the pro-Shepherd case that its principle advocates are reduced to cherry-picking assorted "facts", and then denying the spin they're trying to put on them.

 

The big picture is one of steady decline. Face up to that fact.

[BottledDog]

The board haven't paid for anything. Quite the reverse, they've made fortunes.

 

£45 million since flotation according to some fella on the three legends supposedly.

[Howaythelads]

The board haven't paid for anything. Quite the reverse, they've made fortunes.

 

£45 million since flotation according to some fella on the three legends supposedly.

 

Gospel

[Howaythelads]

It's a measure of the merits of the pro-Shepherd case that its principle advocates are reduced to cherry-picking assorted "facts", and then denying the spin they're trying to put on them.

 

The big picture is one of steady decline. Face up to that fact.

 

Cherry picking?

[BottledDog]

The board haven't paid for anything. Quite the reverse, they've made fortunes.

 

£45 million since flotation according to some fella on the three legends supposedly.

 

Gospel

 

Is it? Fair enough,  I wasn't sure myself.

[Guest zeta87]

Fat Fred out and Roader with him!

[Guest The Fox]

The board haven't paid for anything. Quite the reverse, they've made fortunes.

 

£45 million since flotation according to some fella on the three legends supposedly.

 

Gospel

 

There you are guys its been confirmed.

Surprises me I thought they had laid out a fortune.

Just goes to show you never know.