Falling apart - latest from True Faith

[OzzieMandias]

Aye, the billionaires are just queueing up down Barrack Road, all eager to throw tens of millions of their own money at the problem.

[mrmojorisin75]

I think I'm starting to realise where it all went wrong tbh.

 

Back around 2000, 2001 when the debt was larger than the turnover and the losses were over a third of the turnover, when we'd had 3 or 4 years outside the top 10, what we should have done was to cut back on signings, sell the likes of Dyer for a good profit, let injury prone Shearer's contract run down so he could leave on a free and we could get his high wages off the bill (after all, we had a ready made replacement coming through from the youth team). If it pissed off Robson and he left, no problem, we could have replaced him with someone like Dave Basset.

 

If only the old board had had the vision of Mike Ashley, just think how different it could have been. If only....

 

It's quite obvious what they (as in people who aren't you or NE5, that said your posts seem to mesh together anyway) are getting at, and it's completely fair and doesn't take much or anything away from their criticism of Ashley.

 

Hindsight. Almost on a par with mandiarse.....but not quite.

 

You show me one poster who said at the time we were playing in the san siro etc that we shouldn't have bought those players that took us there rather than run a solvent business ?

 

You will also find the same posters, for the most part, frothing over at the fat b****** for not buying more players and "splashing the cash" whenever we lost a game or two.

 

 

i'll show you plenty who said it when we bought luque etc.

 

as i've already posted the position we were in then is vastly different to the position fred left us in......i'll spell it out for you.

 

borrowing money when you have small debts and a sustaining business plan is ok, in some circumstances it is even preferable to raising cash in other ways.

 

borrowing year on year whan you have very high debt to turnover and have no business plan excepet to hope you become succesful is mindless.

 

why do you constantly cherry pick the highpoints and ignore the position we were left in ?

 

I'm not talking about Luque, you are cherry picking a bad signing as being indicative of the clubs whole philisophy. In actual fact, most people said that Luque was a good player/should have a chance. Not too many people agreed with me when I said that he was s**** the first time I saw him.

 

You have to accept that some players don;t work , or are poor buys, but you can't accept this in the same way as you also completely unrealistically can't accept that we don't appoint the right manager every time. In fact, in the last 4 years ie since Bobby Robson, only 5 clubs have had trophy winning managers. Do you still think everybody apart from us has appointed good managers in the last 4 years ? Why do you ignore the previous 12 years before that ? Fact is, as I've told you, they have been held accountable, they have gone, are you happy with the outcome or not ?

 

 

 

 

no. what i was pointing out was the timing, it came at a time when we weren't doing well and as many pointed out was vastly overpriced.

 

i do not ignore the previous 12 years.you know this,i've said they done well but they stopped doing well and didn't seem to me and others as if they were going to turn it round.

 

now again...i've asked you a few times and am yet to receive an answer......if you keep building debts year on year while being unsuccesful on the field and off...do you keep on going with that tactic until the banks call a halt ?

 

am i happy with the outcome.....could've been better but i'd rather what we have than what i envisage would have happened had it not changed.

 

you wanted rid of a board who backed their managers and had ambition, and they have been replaced by someone who won't back his managers. A good manager, backed by his board, will turn the club around, a good manager not backed by his board will move on and so you have no hope. It isn't "tactic", its having someone with the outlook to succeed, getting rid of them for someone who doesn't back their managers is like getting rid of a good goalscorer just because he has a bad run and replacing him with someone who will never be as prolific. No sense.

 

As you have said, the change has been made, and thats what we have got. Maybe next time, people will appreciate when we have a good board of directors, but I doubt it.

 

We wouldn't have gone into administration, but we certainly could if we are relegated and the crowds dive to what they did for years before 1992. As they nearly did. But nobody above the hard core 15-20000 supporters really cared.

 

As I said to fredbob, what is the way forward ? Do you think its cost cutting, relegation, and half the crowds as a result ?

 

 

 

 

so you do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?

 

do you really think we are the only club with debts ?

 

 

 

Was that a yes or a no?

 

are you madras or are you trying to derail the thread ?

 

Do you think we should have taken Mike Ashleys direction, back in 2001, as UV has asked, rather than have those champions league runs etc ?

 

 

no we aren't the onlu club with debts. we are one of a group of clubs whose debts have reached a level that aren't sustainable and action is needed before it's too late.

 

in 2001 had we spent all of the sponsorship money a few years in advaance ?

 

had we hocked everything available ?

 

was our wage bill over 60 % of turn over ?

 

now please answer my original question......do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?

 

have it your way. We will follow Mikes path, sell our best players, buy bargains from Hartlepool and hope to compete with the other big boys.

 

As UV has also said, what a shame we didn't have soopa mike instead of the fat b******, we would have had a solvent club in the championship instead of playing in the San Siro and you would have been wetting your knicks at having a solvent club.

 

Have you ever heard of the phrase "if you don;t take a shot you won't score a goal" ?

answer my question please.

 

I've answered it, and unlike some of the numpties, I suspect you know exactly what I mean so stop pretending you don't

 

 

can you provide a link to the answer you gave,i'm not taking the mick.  (no pun intended)

 

Back your managers and you have a chance, we got there in the first place through doing just that.

 

Choosing not to back your managers and compete at the level of the likes of Bristol City will leave you, eeeerrr, .......... well work it out.

 

I;ve said this on numerous occasions, there are too many links. I'm sure baggy will find one if you can't be arsed.

 

 

so you didn't really answer my question did you ?.

 

i asked ........"do you think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?"

 

I've told you. You're completely unrealistic.

 

NE5, i'm with you on a few things you say but you've lost it here big time...

[Kitman]

Aye, the billionaires are just queueing up down Barrack Road, all eager to throw tens of millions of their own money at the problem.

 

Great, you must be very happy with how things are going then!  Keep laughing at your own jokes - there must be a village somewhere missing your services.

[mrmojorisin75]

 

Back your managers and you have a chance, we got there in the first place through doing just that.

 

Choosing not to back your managers and compete at the level of the likes of Bristol City will leave you, eeeerrr, .......... well work it out.

 

I;ve said this on numerous occasions, there are too many links. I'm sure baggy will find one if you can't be arsed.

 

 

 

You've probably missed the thread regarding the clubs latest accounts where Ernst & Young added the following:

 

At 30th June 2008 the Group had net liabilities of £36.3m, which includes loans from Mr M J W Ashley totalling £100m.  Net liabilities were £22.6m.  Subsequent to the year and the ultimate controlling party, Mr M J W Ashley, has provided additional funding of £10m.  This funding, together with newly agreed bank facilities, has been incorporated into the Directors' cash flow forecast for the Group.  These forecasts indicate that the Group can continue to meet its debts as they fall due for a period of at least 12 months from the date of approval of these financial statements.  The Directors have also received a commitment from its parent undertaking.  St James Holdings Limited and from ultimate controlling party Mr M J W Ashley that they will continue to provide the Group with financial support so that it can meet its debts as they fall due for a period of at least 12 months from the date of approval of these financial statements or up until the date of any change in control.  On this basis, the Directors have prepared the financial statements on a going concern basis.

 

Basically, without the money Ashley has put in and has promised to carry on doing so, we would be out of business as you can't trade while insolvent.

 

I expect that's true of all the privately owned clubs in the prem, so what?  He should have known what he was in for when he bought the club.  If he can't afford it, he should sell to someone who can.

 

erm, all the other people who looked at the books before ashley ran a fuckin mile in terror...most fans were chuffed when he bought it as we thought things would be run more professionally, hasn't turned out that way though

 

you could, if you wanted, thank your lucky fucking stars we weren't bought with finance at a time when banks are collapsing left right and centre eh?  oh no lets not, he was nasty to kev or summik so nothing else counts does it?

[Mick]

 

I expect that's true of all the privately owned clubs in the prem, so what?  He should have known what he was in for when he bought the club.  If he can't afford it, he should sell to someone who can.

 

He had an estimated wealth of around £1.9 billion when he bought the club, the latest figures have him as being down to £800 million and £240 million of that is tied up in our club.  He also owns 72% of Sports Direct International so he's got hundreds of millions tied up with them.

 

That is the reality of the current situation, and nobody who can afford the football club wanted to buy the club when he tried to sell it.

[NE5]

We should have a sticky for all of the questions NE5 is too chickenshit to answer.

 

so, what do you think of the merits of appointing a manager who won 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards ?

 

Do you want yet another link to this, or are you going to answer it here ?

 

 

[NE5]

Perhaps if they had done something similar themselves then maybe we'd have been looking at our champions league runs stretching longer than 2.

 

 

what

 

 

If they hadn't  gone on a kamikazi spending spree, hoying money about when we didn't have it, then maybe our short stay at the top table would maybe have been longer.

 

 

 

and if they hadn't gone on a "spending spree", they would have been at the top table in the first place, I presume this will go in one ear and out the other.

 

You should have supported the club during the McKeag and Seymour years, you 'd have loved it. Then again, soopa mike will drag us down to that level pretty soon now

 

 

The reason I brought this up was I think they'd already done this - have a relatively fallow year spending wise - during Dalglish's reign I think (and this is off the top of my head, mind) that they'd but a reasonable brake on spending as we had Pearce, Rush and Barnes all playing.

 

My point, is that if they'd taken stock after the SBR reign then perhaps they'd have come up the other side better off. Instead they saw the bright lights and continued to chase after them throwing cash out that we couldn't afford then and still can't.

 

 

Oh, and don't know about Seymour, but deffo McKeag....1977'ish for me.

 

I said at the time that the money they allowed Souness to spend - and throw away through kicking out Bellamy and Robert - would bite us on the arse. Lots of people disagreed though, and said he was doing the right thing, backed what he was doing, and insisted he would come out of the other end as the new Alex Ferguson. A notable supporter of this was mandiarse, one of the biggest supporters of what Souness was doing in fact.

 

The rest of those who supported the spending spree will by and large be the same people who now say they shouldn't have done it.

 

Fact is, re your earlier post, even if you are in a good position, you've got to keep competing to stay there too, no different to if you are in a worse or poor position, you need to compete to get there in the first place. My point remains, football is an expensive business, if you aren't prepared to risk losing money you are in the wrong game, and Ashleys cost cutting will only take us one way.

 

 

[NE5]

I think I'm starting to realise where it all went wrong tbh.

 

Back around 2000, 2001 when the debt was larger than the turnover and the losses were over a third of the turnover, when we'd had 3 or 4 years outside the top 10, what we should have done was to cut back on signings, sell the likes of Dyer for a good profit, let injury prone Shearer's contract run down so he could leave on a free and we could get his high wages off the bill (after all, we had a ready made replacement coming through from the youth team). If it pissed off Robson and he left, no problem, we could have replaced him with someone like Dave Basset.

 

If only the old board had had the vision of Mike Ashley, just think how different it could have been. If only....

 

It's quite obvious what they (as in people who aren't you or NE5, that said your posts seem to mesh together anyway) are getting at, and it's completely fair and doesn't take much or anything away from their criticism of Ashley.

 

Hindsight. Almost on a par with mandiarse.....but not quite.

 

You show me one poster who said at the time we were playing in the san siro etc that we shouldn't have bought those players that took us there rather than run a solvent business ?

 

You will also find the same posters, for the most part, frothing over at the fat b****** for not buying more players and "splashing the cash" whenever we lost a game or two.

 

 

i'll show you plenty who said it when we bought luque etc.

 

as i've already posted the position we were in then is vastly different to the position fred left us in......i'll spell it out for you.

 

borrowing money when you have small debts and a sustaining business plan is ok, in some circumstances it is even preferable to raising cash in other ways.

 

borrowing year on year whan you have very high debt to turnover and have no business plan excepet to hope you become succesful is mindless.

 

why do you constantly cherry pick the highpoints and ignore the position we were left in ?

 

I'm not talking about Luque, you are cherry picking a bad signing as being indicative of the clubs whole philisophy. In actual fact, most people said that Luque was a good player/should have a chance. Not too many people agreed with me when I said that he was s**** the first time I saw him.

 

You have to accept that some players don;t work , or are poor buys, but you can't accept this in the same way as you also completely unrealistically can't accept that we don't appoint the right manager every time. In fact, in the last 4 years ie since Bobby Robson, only 5 clubs have had trophy winning managers. Do you still think everybody apart from us has appointed good managers in the last 4 years ? Why do you ignore the previous 12 years before that ? Fact is, as I've told you, they have been held accountable, they have gone, are you happy with the outcome or not ?

 

 

 

 

no. what i was pointing out was the timing, it came at a time when we weren't doing well and as many pointed out was vastly overpriced.

 

i do not ignore the previous 12 years.you know this,i've said they done well but they stopped doing well and didn't seem to me and others as if they were going to turn it round.

 

now again...i've asked you a few times and am yet to receive an answer......if you keep building debts year on year while being unsuccesful on the field and off...do you keep on going with that tactic until the banks call a halt ?

 

am i happy with the outcome.....could've been better but i'd rather what we have than what i envisage would have happened had it not changed.

 

you wanted rid of a board who backed their managers and had ambition, and they have been replaced by someone who won't back his managers. A good manager, backed by his board, will turn the club around, a good manager not backed by his board will move on and so you have no hope. It isn't "tactic", its having someone with the outlook to succeed, getting rid of them for someone who doesn't back their managers is like getting rid of a good goalscorer just because he has a bad run and replacing him with someone who will never be as prolific. No sense.

 

As you have said, the change has been made, and thats what we have got. Maybe next time, people will appreciate when we have a good board of directors, but I doubt it.

 

We wouldn't have gone into administration, but we certainly could if we are relegated and the crowds dive to what they did for years before 1992. As they nearly did. But nobody above the hard core 15-20000 supporters really cared.

 

As I said to fredbob, what is the way forward ? Do you think its cost cutting, relegation, and half the crowds as a result ?

 

 

 

 

so you do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?

 

do you really think we are the only club with debts ?

 

 

 

Was that a yes or a no?

 

are you madras or are you trying to derail the thread ?

 

Do you think we should have taken Mike Ashleys direction, back in 2001, as UV has asked, rather than have those champions league runs etc ?

 

 

no we aren't the onlu club with debts. we are one of a group of clubs whose debts have reached a level that aren't sustainable and action is needed before it's too late.

 

in 2001 had we spent all of the sponsorship money a few years in advaance ?

 

had we hocked everything available ?

 

was our wage bill over 60 % of turn over ?

 

now please answer my original question......do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?

 

have it your way. We will follow Mikes path, sell our best players, buy bargains from Hartlepool and hope to compete with the other big boys.

 

As UV has also said, what a shame we didn't have soopa mike instead of the fat b******, we would have had a solvent club in the championship instead of playing in the San Siro and you would have been wetting your knicks at having a solvent club.

 

Have you ever heard of the phrase "if you don;t take a shot you won't score a goal" ?

answer my question please.

 

I've answered it, and unlike some of the numpties, I suspect you know exactly what I mean so stop pretending you don't

 

 

can you provide a link to the answer you gave,i'm not taking the mick.  (no pun intended)

 

Back your managers and you have a chance, we got there in the first place through doing just that.

 

Choosing not to back your managers and compete at the level of the likes of Bristol City will leave you, eeeerrr, .......... well work it out.

 

I;ve said this on numerous occasions, there are too many links. I'm sure baggy will find one if you can't be arsed.

 

 

so you didn't really answer my question did you ?.

 

i asked ........"do you think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?"

 

I've told you. You're completely unrealistic.

 

NE5, i'm with you on a few things you say but you've lost it here big time...

 

Long standing debate, this one. We have stopped spending money now, and look where its taking us. See my previous post. How much of the banks money are Liverpool etc using ? Would you prefer a mid table, bottom half club, taking no risks and staying solvent to competing at the top end and filling the stadium and marketing the club like a top club ? My answer, is give me a board who show ambition and are prepared to have a crack at it anyday to one that settles for safe obscurity.

 

 

[NE5]

Aye, the billionaires are just queueing up down Barrack Road, all eager to throw tens of millions of their own money at the problem.

 

Great, you must be very happy with how things are going then!  Keep laughing at your own jokes - there must be a village somewhere missing your services.

 

indeed. 

[NE5]

NE5 just talks shit all the time. Lets face facts, both Shepherd AND Ashley have been pretty shite. The reasons have been discussed over and over.

 

The most important thing a chairman/owner has to do is appoint a decent manager. Shepherd blundered on that account time and time again. Robson was a good one, but his other 3-5 were shite.  Fucka, even I could get it right one in five. We can slaver on about finances and shit forever more, but success on the field usually follows with success off the field. A decent appointment after Robson might have kept us up there, a decent appointment after Souness might have returned us to an Everton, Villa type position. However we continued to make shocking appointments.

 

Look at Villa. They made a brilliant appointment in Martin O'Neill and he is basically building a club back up. Weve just made a mess of everything for years. Its bad management, and its from both Shepherd AND Ashley.

 

We made a brilliant appointment too in Bobby Robson, and any opinion you have other than that, is also a heap of shite. And expecting the club to make such brilliant appointments every time, is also unrealistic shit. For people like you who spout such garbage, we will see who Villa appoint when he goes, and who Arsenal appoint when Wenger goes, and who ManU appoint when Ferguson goes.

 

 

 

 

[OzzieMandias]

stifles yawn

[Guest fading star]

 

I expect that's true of all the privately owned clubs in the prem, so what?  He should have known what he was in for when he bought the club.  If he can't afford it, he should sell to someone who can.

 

He had an estimated wealth of around £1.9 billion when he bought the club, the latest figures have him as being down to £800 million and £240 million of that is tied up in our club.  He also owns 72% of Sports Direct International so he's got hundreds of millions tied up with them.

 

That is the reality of the current situation, and nobody who can afford the football club wanted to buy the club when he tried to sell it.

Apart from the Arab who’s offer of £250m was so derisory Ashley refused to meet him and went out on the piss instead?

 

[fredbob]

NE5 just talks shit all the time. Lets face facts, both Shepherd AND Ashley have been pretty shite. The reasons have been discussed over and over.

 

The most important thing a chairman/owner has to do is appoint a decent manager. Shepherd blundered on that account time and time again. Robson was a good one, but his other 3-5 were shite.  Fucka, even I could get it right one in five. We can slaver on about finances and shit forever more, but success on the field usually follows with success off the field. A decent appointment after Robson might have kept us up there, a decent appointment after Souness might have returned us to an Everton, Villa type position. However we continued to make shocking appointments.

 

Look at Villa. They made a brilliant appointment in Martin O'Neill and he is basically building a club back up. Weve just made a mess of everything for years. Its bad management, and its from both Shepherd AND Ashley.

 

We made a brilliant appointment too in Bobby Robson, and any opinion you have other than that, is also a heap of shite. And expecting the club to make such brilliant appointments every time, is also unrealistic shit. For people like you who spout such garbage, we will see who Villa appoint when he goes, and who Arsenal appoint when Wenger goes, and who ManU appoint when Ferguson goes.

 

 

 

 

 

I think you're losing it here, its perfectly relasitic to expect the board to make good appointments, its unrealisitc to expect them to work out everytime. Prime example being Dlaglish (where only the moinority will criticise his appointment), his record stood up, he was a good appointment.

 

Are you saying that its unrealsiitc to pick a good manager from the entire world? How come Liverpool managed it?

 

The way you see it, is that when people say its easy to make a good appointment (which it is), you think we mean its easy to make an appointment who will do great for the club, its not what we mean.

 

Look at Spurs - Ramos was a fanstastic appointment, but i imaigine you see it as a shit appointment becasue it didnt work out, which isnt how you should judge a persons decison making process. It can only be done on the merit of the appoimtnet.

[Mick]

Apart from the Arab whos offer of £250m was so derisory Ashley refused to meet him and went out on the piss instead?

 

 

Have you got a link to this info?

[Guest The Libertine]

Apart from the Arab who’s offer of £250m was so derisory Ashley refused to meet him and went out on the piss instead?

 

 

Have you got a link to this info?

 

it'll start with www.newsoftheworld.com or www.thesun.co.uk no doubt.

[NE5]

NE5 just talks shit all the time. Lets face facts, both Shepherd AND Ashley have been pretty shite. The reasons have been discussed over and over.

 

The most important thing a chairman/owner has to do is appoint a decent manager. Shepherd blundered on that account time and time again. Robson was a good one, but his other 3-5 were shite.  Fucka, even I could get it right one in five. We can slaver on about finances and shit forever more, but success on the field usually follows with success off the field. A decent appointment after Robson might have kept us up there, a decent appointment after Souness might have returned us to an Everton, Villa type position. However we continued to make shocking appointments.

 

Look at Villa. They made a brilliant appointment in Martin O'Neill and he is basically building a club back up. Weve just made a mess of everything for years. Its bad management, and its from both Shepherd AND Ashley.

 

We made a brilliant appointment too in Bobby Robson, and any opinion you have other than that, is also a heap of shite. And expecting the club to make such brilliant appointments every time, is also unrealistic shit. For people like you who spout such garbage, we will see who Villa appoint when he goes, and who Arsenal appoint when Wenger goes, and who ManU appoint when Ferguson goes.

 

 

 

 

 

I think you're losing it here, its perfectly relasitic to expect the board to make good appointments, its unrealisitc to expect them to work out everytime. Prime example being Dlaglish (where only the moinority will criticise his appointment), his record stood up, he was a good appointment.

 

Are you saying that its unrealsiitc to pick a good manager from the entire world? How come Liverpool managed it?

 

The way you see it, is that when people say its easy to make a good appointment (which it is), you think we mean its easy to make an appointment who will do great for the club, its not what we mean.

 

Look at Spurs - Ramos was a fanstastic appointment, but i imaigine you see it as a shit appointment becasue it didnt work out, which isnt how you should judge a persons decison making process. It can only be done on the merit of the appoimtnet.

 

your last paragraph shows you are actually starting to grasp something, now adopt that principle to the fortunes of NUFC, not that I would say qualifying for europe more than any club bar 4 over a period of a decade is a disaster or anything .........

 

 

[NE5]

Apart from the Arab who’s offer of £250m was so derisory Ashley refused to meet him and went out on the piss instead?

 

 

Have you got a link to this info?

 

there's little point in him doing that because you still won't believe it if it doesn't suit your opinion

 

[NE5]

stifles yawn

 

what was the word you used, chickenshit ? 

[OzzieMandias]

Yes, that was the word.

[fredbob]

NE5 just talks shit all the time. Lets face facts, both Shepherd AND Ashley have been pretty shite. The reasons have been discussed over and over.

 

The most important thing a chairman/owner has to do is appoint a decent manager. Shepherd blundered on that account time and time again. Robson was a good one, but his other 3-5 were shite. Fucka, even I could get it right one in five. We can slaver on about finances and shit forever more, but success on the field usually follows with success off the field. A decent appointment after Robson might have kept us up there, a decent appointment after Souness might have returned us to an Everton, Villa type position. However we continued to make shocking appointments.

 

Look at Villa. They made a brilliant appointment in Martin O'Neill and he is basically building a club back up. Weve just made a mess of everything for years. Its bad management, and its from both Shepherd AND Ashley.

 

We made a brilliant appointment too in Bobby Robson, and any opinion you have other than that, is also a heap of shite. And expecting the club to make such brilliant appointments every time, is also unrealistic shit. For people like you who spout such garbage, we will see who Villa appoint when he goes, and who Arsenal appoint when Wenger goes, and who ManU appoint when Ferguson goes.

 

 

 

 

 

I think you're losing it here, its perfectly relasitic to expect the board to make good appointments, its unrealisitc to expect them to work out everytime. Prime example being Dlaglish (where only the moinority will criticise his appointment), his record stood up, he was a good appointment.

 

Are you saying that its unrealsiitc to pick a good manager from the entire world? How come Liverpool managed it?

 

The way you see it, is that when people say its easy to make a good appointment (which it is), you think we mean its easy to make an appointment who will do great for the club, its not what we mean.

 

Look at Spurs - Ramos was a fanstastic appointment, but i imaigine you see it as a shit appointment becasue it didnt work out, which isnt how you should judge a persons decison making process. It can only be done on the merit of the appoimtnet.

 

your last paragraph shows you are actually starting to grasp something, now adopt that principle to the fortunes of NUFC, not that I would say qualifying for europe more than any club bar 4 over a period of a decade is a disaster or anything .........

 

 

 

Absolutley, pretty much everything up to 2004 was great, aside from the intefereing and undermining of SBR (and not backing him at THE most crucuial time) the sacking was a terrible mistake in my opinion (but a canvas of opinion at the time would firmly put me in the miority), the appointment of Souness was possibly one of the worst decisions Ive ever seen made at a club of this stature at the time, the decision to back him with so much money was the second worst decision.

 

This is what a lot of people are trying to tell you, they had the foresight at the time to say this was a shit appointment, there can be no argument here, it wasnt a good appointment by any stretch of the imagination. And it happens to be a decision we're still paying for now. The scope to make a good appointment was definitely there, unlike Liverpool we were unwilling to see what the foreign shores had to offer, what happened to ambition then? It was possilby the best time in NUFC history to make a world class appointment and we failed miserably.

 

Shepherd et al were pretty much untouchable up to that point.

 

Its a sad state of affiars but once a mistake is made the past is largely forgotten, what good is a past if you have a grim future?

 

I'll always be immensely grateful for some of the best times ive ever seen at nufc, but i wont excuse any bad decision which has cost the club so much. It just doesnt work like that.

 

You say you have this winning attitude, so what happened to this winning attitude once things went tits up with Souness? Id argue that the ones who criticise Shepherd for the Souness/Roeder/Allardyce appointments are really the ones with the winning atitude.

[Gallowgate End]

Absolutley, pretty much everything up to 2004 was great, aside from the intefereing and undermining of SBR (and not backing him at THE most crucuial time) the sacking was a terrible mistake in my opinion (but a canvas of opinion at the time would firmly put me in the miority), the appointment of Souness was possibly one of the worst decisions Ive ever seen made at a club of this stature at the time, the decision to back him with so much money was the second worst decision.

 

This is what a lot of people are trying to tell you,<b> they had the foresight at the time to say this was a shit appointment, there can be no argument here,</b> it wasnt a good appointment by any stretch of the imagination. And it happens to be a decision we're still paying for now. The scope to make a good appointment was definitely there, unlike Liverpool we were unwilling to see what the foreign shores had to offer, what happened to ambition then? It was possilby the best time in NUFC history to make a world class appointment and we failed miserably.

 

 

Great post all of it.

[NE5]

NE5 just talks shit all the time. Lets face facts, both Shepherd AND Ashley have been pretty shite. The reasons have been discussed over and over.

 

The most important thing a chairman/owner has to do is appoint a decent manager. Shepherd blundered on that account time and time again. Robson was a good one, but his other 3-5 were shite.  Fucka, even I could get it right one in five. We can slaver on about finances and shit forever more, but success on the field usually follows with success off the field. A decent appointment after Robson might have kept us up there, a decent appointment after Souness might have returned us to an Everton, Villa type position. However we continued to make shocking appointments.

 

Look at Villa. They made a brilliant appointment in Martin O'Neill and he is basically building a club back up. Weve just made a mess of everything for years. Its bad management, and its from both Shepherd AND Ashley.

 

We made a brilliant appointment too in Bobby Robson, and any opinion you have other than that, is also a heap of shite. And expecting the club to make such brilliant appointments every time, is also unrealistic shit. For people like you who spout such garbage, we will see who Villa appoint when he goes, and who Arsenal appoint when Wenger goes, and who ManU appoint when Ferguson goes.

 

 

 

 

 

I think you're losing it here, its perfectly relasitic to expect the board to make good appointments, its unrealisitc to expect them to work out everytime. Prime example being Dlaglish (where only the moinority will criticise his appointment), his record stood up, he was a good appointment.

 

Are you saying that its unrealsiitc to pick a good manager from the entire world? How come Liverpool managed it?

 

The way you see it, is that when people say its easy to make a good appointment (which it is), you think we mean its easy to make an appointment who will do great for the club, its not what we mean.

 

Look at Spurs - Ramos was a fanstastic appointment, but i imaigine you see it as a shit appointment becasue it didnt work out, which isnt how you should judge a persons decison making process. It can only be done on the merit of the appoimtnet.

 

your last paragraph shows you are actually starting to grasp something, now adopt that principle to the fortunes of NUFC, not that I would say qualifying for europe more than any club bar 4 over a period of a decade is a disaster or anything .........

 

 

 

Absolutley, pretty much everything up to 2004 was great, aside from the intefereing and undermining of SBR (and not backing him at THE most crucuial time) the sacking was a terrible mistake in my opinion (but a canvas of opinion at the time would firmly put me in the miority), the appointment of Souness was possibly one of the worst decisions Ive ever seen made at a club of this stature at the time, the decision to back him with so much money was the second worst decision.

 

This is what a lot of people are trying to tell you, they had the foresight at the time to say this was a shit appointment , there can be no argument here, it wasnt a good appointment by any stretch of the imagination. And it happens to be a decision we're still paying for now. The scope to make a good appointment was definitely there, unlike Liverpool we were unwilling to see what the foreign shores had to offer, what happened to ambition then? It was possilby the best time in NUFC history to make a world class appointment and we failed miserably.

 

Shepherd et al were pretty much untouchable up to that point.

 

Its a sad state of affiars but once a mistake is made the past is largely forgotten, what good is a past if you have a grim future?

 

I'll always be immensely grateful for some of the best times ive ever seen at nufc, but i wont excuse any bad decision which has cost the club so much. It just doesnt work like that.

 

 

canny post, but the bold is totally wrong. Most people backed him all the way, his buys, his sales, and encouraged the fat bastard to give him even more money insisting that doing it like Alex Ferguson in kicking out the "cancers" was going to yield the same results. They will now be mostly the same people who are complaining the club spent too much money, applying mandiarse type expert hindsight. 

 

 

[NE5]

Yes, that was the word.

 

so you're not going to tell us what merits you see in appointing a manager who wins 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards, to add to the 3 managerial appointments already that you have clearly backed on this message board ?

 

 

[cp40]

Yes, that was the word.

 

so you're not going to tell us what merits you see in appointing a manager who wins 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards, to add to the 3 managerial appointments already that you have clearly backed on this message board ?

 

 

 

[OzzieMandias]

What are the merits of answering a poster who asks the same off-topic question 432 times on 87 different threads?