Keegan to launch £9m unfair dismissal claim?

[Dave]

I think and hope he was in it for the good of the club, but my point was that his actions (or rather lack of them) suggest otherwise, and that's strange to me. As I said, for someone who likes to gamble with huge sums of money on the markets and in casinos I find it strange how his time here has seen so little bottom-line investment in the team. Wouldn't it be more 'fun' if we were winning more games?

 

His willingness to up and fuck off, abandoning his precious system and structure at the first sign of trouble also doesn't add up IMO.

[fredbob]

I think and hope he was in it for the good of the club, but my point was that his actions (or rather lack of them) suggest otherwise, and that's strange to me. As I said, for someone who likes to gamble with huge sums of money on the markets and in casinos I find it strange how his time here has seen so little bottom-line investment in the team. Wouldn't it be more 'fun' if we were winning more games?

 

His willingness to up and f*** off, abandoning his precious system and structure at the first sign of trouble also doesn't add up IMO.

 

I'll agree with you there - the transfer activity WASNT good enough - im not an idiot im happy to acknowledge that - but i did see signs that he WAS looking to do the best for the club.  However for his first season in football, I'm happy to give him the benefit of the doubt for one more season, its just a shame that alot of you dont want to.

 

We still dont know how much this Keegan farce affected Ashley's transfer plans, no one knows any of the full details but alot of people are making judgments.

 

"Only a fool would predict what's in the mist.  " - Fredbob - October 2008

[Dave]

I gave him the benefit of all doubt from day one to be fair.

[NE5]

I think and hope he was in it for the good of the club, but my point was that his actions (or rather lack of them) suggest otherwise, and that's strange to me. As I said, for someone who likes to gamble with huge sums of money on the markets and in casinos I find it strange how his time here has seen so little bottom-line investment in the team. Wouldn't it be more 'fun' if we were winning more games?

 

His willingness to up and f*** off, abandoning his precious system and structure at the first sign of trouble also doesn't add up IMO.

 

I'll agree with you there - the transfer activity WASNT good enough - im not an idiot im happy to acknowledge that - but i did see signs that he WAS looking to do the best for the club.  However for his first season in football, I'm happy to give him the benefit of the doubt for one more season, its just a shame that alot of you dont want to.

 

We still dont know how much this Keegan farce affected Ashley's transfer plans, no one knows any of the full details but alot of people are making judgments.

 

"Only a fool would predict what's in the mist.  " - Fredbob - October 2008

 

I would say the farcial club policy and unworkable management structure affected Keegans transfer plans.

 

 

[NE5]

Buying and selling players needs to be done within the club's budget and that's never really been Keegan's forte unless he is allowed to spend pretty generously.

 

You don't buy into that surely do you?

 

It reads to me that you're trying to convince yourself of this in order to convince yourself that the set-up/system/structure Ashley put in place is the right thing for the club and if that really is the case you've lost it mate. Seriously.

 

 

 

that is the case with a lot of people.

 

 

Keegan walked out in 1997 because he couldn't work under a new structure...a structure which you keep defending to the hilt non-stop under Shepherd which did bring a relative amount of success.

 

you won't find a post by me defending the club going PLC

 

Apology accepted.

 

 

But you do defend Shepherd, and Keegan walked out first time not long after he took over as Chairman iirc, because of what was happening with the club. After a pretty average first few seasons, Shepherd started to get it right and we had a bit of success. Who's to say if Keegan hadn't stuck it out for a bit back then, that he couldn't have got us back to where we were when Hall was in sole charge? Same criteria applies for today.

 

Who's idea was it to go PLC ? Who had the power to make such a decision ? I don't think it was Shepherd, but in the context of it being a board thing [which is what I've always said] then you would have to say they all did it, but such a decision isn't a footballing one so it was even more unlikely to be a minor shareholder all on his own. The wheels to go PLC were in motion before Shepherd became chairman, but I'm not arguing about the merits of whoever was chairman and I never have.

 

One thing you need to be successful, more than anything else, is to back your manager, and this is why I've stuck with the old board, whoever the chairman is.

 

 

[OzzieMandias]

The excuse-making machine rolls on.

[midds]

Buying and selling players needs to be done within the club's budget and that's never really been Keegan's forte unless he is allowed to spend pretty generously.

 

You don't buy into that surely do you?

 

It reads to me that you're trying to convince yourself of this in order to convince yourself that the set-up/system/structure Ashley put in place is the right thing for the club and if that really is the case you've lost it mate. Seriously.

 

 

 

that is the case with a lot of people.

 

 

Keegan walked out in 1997 because he couldn't work under a new structure...a structure which you keep defending to the hilt non-stop under Shepherd which did bring a relative amount of success.

 

you won't find a post by me defending the club going PLC

 

Apology accepted.

 

 

But you do defend Shepherd, and Keegan walked out first time not long after he took over as Chairman iirc, because of what was happening with the club. After a pretty average first few seasons, Shepherd started to get it right and we had a bit of success. Who's to say if Keegan hadn't stuck it out for a bit back then, that he couldn't have got us back to where we were when Hall was in sole charge? Same criteria applies for today.

 

Who's idea was it to go PLC ? Who had the power to make such a decision ? I don't think it was Shepherd, but in the context of it being a board thing [which is what I've always said] then you would have to say they all did it, but such a decision isn't a footballing one so it was even more unlikely to be a minor shareholder all on his own. The wheels to go PLC were in motion before Shepherd became chairman, but I'm not arguing about the merits of whoever was chairman and I never have.

 

One thing you need to be successful, more than anything else, is to back your manager, and this is why I've stuck with the old board, whoever the chairman is.

 

 

 

Do you mean 'back the manager financially' , 'back the manager's judgement' or both?

[madras]

Buying and selling players needs to be done within the club's budget and that's never really been Keegan's forte unless he is allowed to spend pretty generously.

 

You don't buy into that surely do you?

 

It reads to me that you're trying to convince yourself of this in order to convince yourself that the set-up/system/structure Ashley put in place is the right thing for the club and if that really is the case you've lost it mate. Seriously.

 

 

 

that is the case with a lot of people.

 

 

Keegan walked out in 1997 because he couldn't work under a new structure...a structure which you keep defending to the hilt non-stop under Shepherd which did bring a relative amount of success.

 

you won't find a post by me defending the club going PLC

 

Apology accepted.

 

 

But you do defend Shepherd, and Keegan walked out first time not long after he took over as Chairman iirc, because of what was happening with the club. After a pretty average first few seasons, Shepherd started to get it right and we had a bit of success. Who's to say if Keegan hadn't stuck it out for a bit back then, that he couldn't have got us back to where we were when Hall was in sole charge? Same criteria applies for today.

 

Who's idea was it to go PLC ? Who had the power to make such a decision ? I don't think it was Shepherd, but in the context of it being a board thing [which is what I've always said] then you would have to say they all did it, but such a decision isn't a footballing one so it was even more unlikely to be a minor shareholder all on his own. The wheels to go PLC were in motion before Shepherd became chairman, but I'm not arguing about the merits of whoever was chairman and I never have.

 

One thing you need to be successful, more than anything else, is to back your manager, and this is why I've stuck with the old board, whoever the chairman is.

 

 

 

Do you mean 'back the manager financially' , 'back the manager's judgement' or both?

and when happens when the boards judgement is seen to be crap ?

[Guest icemanblue]

Deja vu, all over again.

[UV]

The excuse-making machine rolls on.

 

At least fredbob is trying to put up some kind of argument, misguided though it may be. 

 

But as I guess you want Ashley to sell up to anyone, I'm not sure why you're sticking up for him.

[Optimistic Nut]

Buying and selling players needs to be done within the club's budget and that's never really been Keegan's forte unless he is allowed to spend pretty generously.

 

You don't buy into that surely do you?

 

It reads to me that you're trying to convince yourself of this in order to convince yourself that the set-up/system/structure Ashley put in place is the right thing for the club and if that really is the case you've lost it mate. Seriously.

 

 

 

that is the case with a lot of people.

 

 

Keegan walked out in 1997 because he couldn't work under a new structure...a structure which you keep defending to the hilt non-stop under Shepherd which did bring a relative amount of success.

 

you won't find a post by me defending the club going PLC

 

Apology accepted.

 

 

But you do defend Shepherd, and Keegan walked out first time not long after he took over as Chairman iirc, because of what was happening with the club. After a pretty average first few seasons, Shepherd started to get it right and we had a bit of success. Who's to say if Keegan hadn't stuck it out for a bit back then, that he couldn't have got us back to where we were when Hall was in sole charge? Same criteria applies for today.

 

Who's idea was it to go PLC ? Who had the power to make such a decision ? I don't think it was Shepherd, but in the context of it being a board thing [which is what I've always said] then you would have to say they all did it, but such a decision isn't a footballing one so it was even more unlikely to be a minor shareholder all on his own. The wheels to go PLC were in motion before Shepherd became chairman, but I'm not arguing about the merits of whoever was chairman and I never have.

 

One thing you need to be successful, more than anything else, is to back your manager, and this is why I've stuck with the old board, whoever the chairman is.

 

 

Or did Keegan walk that time because he knew that in the short-term he'd have to sell the likes of Ferdinand & Ginola?

 

And Dalglish even said himself that it was the club that accepted the money from Bolton for Robbie Elliott, not him. If he'd stuck out that first year or so, then the money was made available for him by Shepherd. (although to be fair to Dalglish, a fair bit of his early spending was buying in fringe players to help re-set up the reserve side which Keegan got rid of).

 

Who's to say the same thing wouldn't have applied here?

[OzzieMandias]

The excuse-making machine rolls on.

 

At least fredbob is trying to put up some kind of argument, misguided though it may be. 

 

But as I guess you want Ashley to sell up to anyone, I'm not sure why you're sticking up for him.

 

How can you read that post as me "sticking up for Ashley"?

[Guest Howaythetoon]

KK leaving in 97 is different to KK leaving in 2008 - or rather the circumstances are different. Yes you could say he was being undermined as players were being touted around behind his back - Sir Less was offered to Everton, Spurs, Arsenal and Villa for example - which angered KK of course and resulted in showdown talks.

 

KK won in that Sir Les would be going nowhere but he did compromise with the club who needed to generate some funds ready for the IPO by way of selling fringe players to raise the money that way. Trying to flog key players behind the manager's back is a big no no under any circumstances but KK and the then board were good friends and could work these problems out which they did like they did with even bigger problems during their 5 years together.

 

The real reason for KK's resignation however came down to a stipulation in the IPO that the manager had to be committed for at least 2 years to give investors confidence in the future of the club and KK couldn't promise that.

 

He was upset over the attempts to flog Sir Les behind his back, hadn't had a break in 5 years and wasn't exactly happy at the prospect of working for a PLC rather than the cosey and successful set-up they all enjoyed together, board and manager and neither were some board members by the way. Under those circumstances of uncertainty it would be foolish to commit to anything long-term really.

 

What really got KK though was the board's answer to him being unable to guarantee his commitment for another 2 years, which was "you'll have to or you'll have to leave at the end of the season"

 

KK felt the club were showing a lack of loyalty by siding with the IPO over him and taking a gamble on what they ahd all achieved together in pursuit of the money that would be raised from the IPO and basically said well if that's how you feel, I'll leave now and so he did.

 

The board were right of course to back KK into such a corner as they had other people to answer to (the IPO) which was the future of the club.

 

Although in hindsight the IPO and becoming a PLC didn't really change our fortunes on the pitch nor many other clubs' fortunes for that matter and you could say KK foresaw all of that and was right to be dismissive about the future prospects of the club operating as a PLC.

 

The moral of the story reads to me anyway that you can't constrain KK or a manager like him who needs total control and transparency and when you think about it, its their necks on the line here. They are the ones judged by results on the pitch and the ones who live or die by the players they sign or sell and how they do in the transfer market.

 

When Ashley went for KK he should have consulted Sir John Hall first and asked what kind of environment KK would need to be successful in. The DOF and the way in which they have since operated their system was akin to tying KK's hand's behind his back and was always only ever going to result in one thing - KK eventually walking away.

 

Looking back now and looking at things now it is clear to me that their needs to be a healthy relationship between the board and manager and they not only need to get on but they also need to trust one another. There was no real relationship between KK and the board this time around and had their been maybe things would be different now because KK stayed for 5 years first time around and surely that isn't just a result of his success on the pitch but the relationship they all enjoyed between each other - board and manager - which actually extended to beyond the club as they were all good friends. There is a lesson to be learned here...

[UV]

The excuse-making machine rolls on.

 

At least fredbob is trying to put up some kind of argument, misguided though it may be. 

 

But as I guess you want Ashley to sell up to anyone, I'm not sure why you're sticking up for him.

 

How can you read that post as me "sticking up for Ashley"?

 

I assume you'd want new owners as aye, they might fail.

 

But then again, this is the second season in a row where the consensus is that we're in danger of relegation. So what's to fear from a change at the top?

[TRon]

KK leaving in 97 is different to KK leaving in 2008 - or rather the circumstances are different. Yes you could say he was being undermined as players were being touted around behind his back - Sir Less was offered to Everton, Spurs, Arsenal and Villa for example - which angered KK of course and resulted in showdown talks.

 

KK won in that Sir Les would be going nowhere but he did compromise with the club who needed to generate some funds ready for the IPO by way of selling fringe players to raise the money that way. Trying to flog key players behind the manager's back is a big no no under any circumstances but KK and the then board were good friends and could work these problems out which they did like they did with even bigger problems during their 5 years together.

 

The real reason for KK's resignation however came down to a stipulation in the IPO that the manager had to be committed for at least 2 years to give investors confidence in the future of the club and KK couldn't promise that.

 

He was upset over the attempts to flog Sir Les behind his back, hadn't had a break in 5 years and wasn't exactly happy at the prospect of working for a PLC rather than the cosey and successful set-up they all enjoyed together, board and manager and neither were some board members by the way. Under those circumstances of uncertainty it would be foolish to commit to anything long-term really.

 

What really got KK though was the board's answer to him being unable to guarantee his commitment for another 2 years, which was "you'll have to or you'll have to leave at the end of the season"

 

KK felt the club were showing a lack of loyalty by siding with the IPO over him and taking a gamble on what they ahd all achieved together in pursuit of the money that would be raised from the IPO and basically said well if that's how you feel, I'll leave now and so he did.

 

The board were right of course to back KK into such a corner as they had other people to answer to (the IPO) which was the future of the club.

 

Although in hindsight the IPO and becoming a PLC didn't really change our fortunes on the pitch nor many other clubs' fortunes for that matter and you could say KK foresaw all of that and was right to be dismissive about the future prospects of the club operating as a PLC.

 

The moral of the story reads to me anyway that you can't constrain KK or a manager like him who needs total control and transparency and when you think about it, its their necks on the line here. They are the ones judged by results on the pitch and the ones who live or die by the players they sign or sell and how they do in the transfer market.

 

When Ashley went for KK he should have consulted Sir John Hall first and asked what kind of environment KK would need to be successful in. The DOF and the way in which they have since operated their system was akin to tying KK's hand's behind his back and was always only ever going to result in one thing - KK eventually walking away.

 

Looking back now and looking at things now it is clear to me that their needs to be a healthy relationship between the board and manager and they not only need to get on but they also need to trust one another. There was no real relationship between KK and the board this time around and had their been maybe things would be different now because KK stayed for 5 years first time around and surely that isn't just a result of his success on the pitch but the relationship they all enjoyed between each other - board and manager - which actually extended to beyond the club as they were all good friends. There is a lesson to be learned here...

 

There's a lot of sense in there HTT. Lerner seems to have a lot of trust with O'Neill for example, they seem to have a very good working relationship. In contrast, Ashley has a very hands off approach and delegates a lot of work down a chain of command which appears to have left Keegan out of the loop, something which he wasn't happy with going back even last season.

 

What I would say though, is that money plays a big part in all this. It was the reason KK became disillusioned in '97 and it's got a lot to do with why he left now. Even with Lerner and O'Neill the true test of the relationship will be when the purse strings have to be tightened if things go wonky. At the moment though O'Neill has invested very well so everything looks good. I suppose Keegan would argue that he was never really given that chance.

[OzzieMandias]

The excuse-making machine rolls on.

 

At least fredbob is trying to put up some kind of argument, misguided though it may be. 

 

But as I guess you want Ashley to sell up to anyone, I'm not sure why you're sticking up for him.

 

How can you read that post as me "sticking up for Ashley"?

 

I assume you'd want new owners as aye, they might fail.

 

But then again, this is the second season in a row where the consensus is that we're in danger of relegation. So what's to fear from a change at the top?

 

Why don't you stop "assuming" and deal with what people actually write?

[UV]

The excuse-making machine rolls on.

 

At least fredbob is trying to put up some kind of argument, misguided though it may be. 

 

But as I guess you want Ashley to sell up to anyone, I'm not sure why you're sticking up for him.

 

How can you read that post as me "sticking up for Ashley"?

 

I assume you'd want new owners as aye, they might fail.

 

But then again, this is the second season in a row where the consensus is that we're in danger of relegation. So what's to fear from a change at the top?

 

Why don't you stop "assuming" and deal with what people actually write?

 

Oops, my bad. I missed out the quotes. That's not my opinion, it's yours from 2 years ago when a dodgy investment group showed an interest in buying us.

 

no-one has the first clue about what the belgravia groups intentions are toward NUFC, and who, or group of people, will act as the club's executive directors if they do take control

 

 

They'll want to make money. This can only be done by, first and foremost, by pursuing success on the pitch and making Newcastle once again a team that people want to watch – something that now seems to be way beyond Shepherd and his cronies.

 

Aye, they might fail.

 

But then again, this is the second season in a row where the consensus is that we're in danger of relegation. So what's to fear from a change at the top?

 

I just assumed you'd still think the same now. 

[ChezGiven]

HTT just lifted all that out of the autobiography. You can tell its second hand material as he doesnt understand some of the key concepts like IPO and cant refer to them properly as he doesnt know what it is.

 

"Siding with the IPO" makes fuck all sense. Its a linguistic impossibility.

 

The money generated by the Initial Public Offering, a formal name related to intitial offer price of the stock allowed the club to build on its success and move forward. There was no justification for Keegan walking then either, it was a reality of the times. Managers like Ferguson have overseen far greater financial turmoil and change and just got on with it.

 

Although in hindsight the IPO and becoming a PLC didn't really change our fortunes on the pitch nor many other clubs' fortunes for that matter and you could say KK foresaw all of that and was right to be dismissive about the future prospects of the club operating as a PLC.

is the biggest pile of turd you have written for a while.

 

It created capital via equity as opposed to via debt which is, according to all the financial experts on here, a fearsome burden for any club to carry and should be avoided like the plague. Thats what the IPO was about. Ironic in many ways you're using the IPO to justify behaviour. 

[OzzieMandias]

The excuse-making machine rolls on.

 

At least fredbob is trying to put up some kind of argument, misguided though it may be. 

 

But as I guess you want Ashley to sell up to anyone, I'm not sure why you're sticking up for him.

 

How can you read that post as me "sticking up for Ashley"?

 

I assume you'd want new owners as aye, they might fail.

 

But then again, this is the second season in a row where the consensus is that we're in danger of relegation. So what's to fear from a change at the top?

 

Why don't you stop "assuming" and deal with what people actually write?

 

Oops, my bad. I missed out the quotes. That's not my opinion, it's yours from 2 years ago when a dodgy investment group showed an interest in buying us.

 

no-one has the first clue about what the belgravia groups intentions are toward NUFC, and who, or group of people, will act as the club's executive directors if they do take control

 

 

They'll want to make money. This can only be done by, first and foremost, by pursuing success on the pitch and making Newcastle once again a team that people want to watch ? something that now seems to be way beyond Shepherd and his cronies.

 

Aye, they might fail.

 

But then again, this is the second season in a row where the consensus is that we're in danger of relegation. So what's to fear from a change at the top?

 

I just assumed you'd still think the same now. 

 

Well, hell, forgive me for not twigging that you were replying to a two-year-old post. 

[danswan]

lol

[fredbob]

I gave him the benefit of all doubt from day one to be fair.

 

But you seem to have lost complete faith in him now - but so far havent presented anything substantial to back these feelings up. Im not asking for you in particular to do so but its the same with a lot of people everyone has this definitive opinion but no one backs it up or takes in account the situation at the time. In my eyes the only thing that Ashley has done wrong so far that we can definitievly criticise him for is for not doing his research on the club and appointing Keegan.

[fredbob]

I think and hope he was in it for the good of the club, but my point was that his actions (or rather lack of them) suggest otherwise, and that's strange to me. As I said, for someone who likes to gamble with huge sums of money on the markets and in casinos I find it strange how his time here has seen so little bottom-line investment in the team. Wouldn't it be more 'fun' if we were winning more games?

 

His willingness to up and f*** off, abandoning his precious system and structure at the first sign of trouble also doesn't add up IMO.

 

I'll agree with you there - the transfer activity WASNT good enough - im not an idiot im happy to acknowledge that - but i did see signs that he WAS looking to do the best for the club.  However for his first season in football, I'm happy to give him the benefit of the doubt for one more season, its just a shame that alot of you dont want to.

 

We still dont know how much this Keegan farce affected Ashley's transfer plans, no one knows any of the full details but alot of people are making judgments.

 

"Only a fool would predict what's in the mist.  " - Fredbob - October 2008

 

I would say the farcial club policy and unworkable management structure affected Keegans transfer plans.

 

 

 

Theres snippets out there that would suggest that Keegan affected the clubs transfer plans by turning down targets he hadnt heard of. (which may of been down to the fact he'd been out the game for 3 years...)

 

I personally have been happy with who we've signed so far. The numbers arent great but the quality is. Can you name the last time we had such a successful transfer period in terms of quality?

 

Its right in front of peoples eyes.

 

 

[fredbob]

The excuse-making machine rolls on.

 

At least fredbob is trying to put up some kind of argument, misguided though it may be. 

 

But as I guess you want Ashley to sell up to anyone, I'm not sure why you're sticking up for him.

 

 

I think I'm playing a part in swaying some peoples opinions - too late i know but....

[Guest Howaythetoon]

HTT just lifted all that out of the autobiography. You can tell its second hand material as he doesnt understand some of the key concepts like IPO and cant refer to them properly as he doesnt know what it is.

 

"Siding with the IPO" makes f*** all sense. Its a linguistic impossibility.

 

Oh I understand it all OK, but this is a message board not a lecture on IPOs, PLCs etc... You knock yourself out desperately demonstrating your knowledge of all this though

 

The money generated by the Initial Public Offering, a formal name related to intitial offer price of the stock allowed the club to build on its success and move forward. There was no justification for Keegan walking then either, it was a reality of the times. Managers like Ferguson have overseen far greater financial turmoil and change and just got on with it.

 

No justification? He was being asked to commit to something he was very uncertain of or apprehensive about at a time when he and the board were slowly drifting a part in terms of their respective visions for the club and he himself was more than likely in need of a break. What he did was put the club first by walking away from something he didn't feel he could help, allowing the club to bring in a much better suited alternative. He had every justification for walking away rather than staying on. Remember we are mere commentators here, we don't know many things like internal relationships and what his real role would have been. Under a PLC would KK have been allowed to negotiate transfers and contracts, a key strength of his and one of the major factors behind our success?

 

Although in hindsight the IPO and becoming a PLC didn't really change our fortunes on the pitch nor many other clubs' fortunes for that matter and you could say KK foresaw all of that and was right to be dismissive about the future prospects of the club operating as a PLC.

is the biggest pile of turd you have written for a while.

 

Well in what ways did it help us? I can only go off our record as a club since then compared to before and it hasn't exactly been great has it?

 

It created capital via equity as opposed to via debt which is, according to all the financial experts on here, a fearsome burden for any club to carry and should be avoided like the plague. Thats what the IPO was about. Ironic in many ways you're using the IPO to justify behaviour. 

 

And yet the club still took on debt. Not that this is my issue with the club operating as a PLC.

[UV]

The excuse-making machine rolls on.

 

At least fredbob is trying to put up some kind of argument, misguided though it may be. 

 

But as I guess you want Ashley to sell up to anyone, I'm not sure why you're sticking up for him.

 

How can you read that post as me "sticking up for Ashley"?

 

I assume you'd want new owners as aye, they might fail.

 

But then again, this is the second season in a row where the consensus is that we're in danger of relegation. So what's to fear from a change at the top?

 

Why don't you stop "assuming" and deal with what people actually write?

 

Oops, my bad. I missed out the quotes. That's not my opinion, it's yours from 2 years ago when a dodgy investment group showed an interest in buying us.

 

no-one has the first clue about what the belgravia groups intentions are toward NUFC, and who, or group of people, will act as the club's executive directors if they do take control

 

 

They'll want to make money. This can only be done by, first and foremost, by pursuing success on the pitch and making Newcastle once again a team that people want to watch ? something that now seems to be way beyond Shepherd and his cronies.

 

Aye, they might fail.

 

But then again, this is the second season in a row where the consensus is that we're in danger of relegation. So what's to fear from a change at the top?

 

I just assumed you'd still think the same now. 

 

Well, hell, forgive me for not twigging that you were replying to a two-year-old post. 

 

So now you've been reminded of your opinions, can I take it you stick by them and will be happy with anyone taking over from Ashley?