Shepherd Has His Say (Again)

[Parky]

Avoidance again! Are you a tory MP in disguise? Simple question. Answer it with one word yes or no.

 

Do you accept that the reason that we are in the state we are in financially is partially Freddy Shepherd's fault?

 

what have you got against Tories ? Do Labour, Liberal, BNP, UKIP mp's, or even Mike Ashley, always answer straight questions ?

 

I've told you, the Halls and Shepherd did a great job, they left the club unrecognisable and a million miles superior to how they found it, I wouldn't call that "blame", I would call it a great credit.

 

 

 

 

 

Sir you are a baboon then. If you believe perilously close to bankruptcy through bad management and mortgaging the club beyond belief with a bank which needed to be bailed out by the government itself was a fantastic thing then you are just mad. I cannot disagree that the football was great, but had Shepherd remained in charge we would have been bankrupted. Your head in the sand attitude and deluded belief that Freddy Shepherd was not a bad apple who was stinking out the barrel at Newcastle is astonishing. Sir John Hall had a vision for this club, which his son and Freddy Shepherd distorted and abused to make their own financial gains. While we are certainly miles away from where we were prior to Sir John Hall's intervention, it is laughable that you continue to stand up for Freddy Shepherd, a man who most others lost any respect they had for him when he was caught out by the NOTW with his contempt for his peers and his customers.

 

rubbish.

 

mackems.gif

 

Did you see many protestors standing up for their principles a few months after that "contempt for his peers and customers" when FA Cup Final tickets were being dished out, for the first time in 24 years, I may add.

 

When do you think the automatically better board will reach another Cup Final or even qualify for the UEFA Cup ?

 

 

 

Under Mike Ashley I don't think we will. But you keep on telling yourself that Freddy was a top bloke, and wasn't bothered first and foremost with lining his pockets from the money he could make from Newcastle United. I think Freddy Shepherd has a nerve telling anyone how to run Newcastle United as a successful business.

 

you find a post where I have said he was a "top bloke".

 

Apology accepted.

 

 

 

None given.

 

So will you now please answer my question. Is Freddy Shepherd (at least partially) responsible for Newcastle's financial state? Why can you not answer this yes or no? Why can't you stop waffling on about other things?

 

What are you talking about ? The saleable value of the club increased from 1.25m to anywhere between 100m and 200m quid while they ran it ?

 

 

 

Maybe you should go back to the financial statement thread and re-read it if you cannot understand what I am asking you about.

 

 

I think you should look at the league positions I posted and the history of the club if you don't understand exactly how much better off the club became while the Halls and shepherd ran it.

 

 

 

Thank you I know exactly what happened with the club when Sir John Hall came in. I can remember what it was like before he came in. And I know what happened when Sir John Hall and Freddy Shepherd were here in regards of football. I also know that Fred Shepherd mortgaged the club to the hilt and he was lucky not to financially ruin the club. I know that Mike Ashley was not the only person to look at the books with a view of taking over the club, but the mess Freddy Shepherd had made with the finances put everyone else off. I don't need a history lesson, but you need a reality check!

 

So, it's a mystery to you that the top 4 have massive debt??

man utd's is dropping dramatically, chelsea are fucked should abramovic walk away,arsenal have had to redefine their plans and liverpool are trying to sell up.

 

So you admit it takes massive expenditure and debt risk to gain a chance at success?

 

 

And when massive expenditure and debt buys only a steady decline until there's nothing left to borrow against?

 

 

 

Not as simple as that is it. People come into these threads (not you) saying FS is a cunt, KK is a cunt, Wise is a cunt etc...it's more complex than that (as you know). Sometimes little things go against you (Luque's career threateing inj or Boumsong being half decent) and history can be re-written.

 

 

And sometimes throwing money at the problem only makes things massively worse, if there's consistently poor decision-making in other areas.

 

 

The days when you could build a club with youth and cheap buys are long gone. You either compete and spend or you do what MA is doing...Shitting his large pants. The muppet.

 

And that ain't that simple either. What was Coloccini? Youth? Or a cheap buy?

 

 

 

I agree just throwing money at it is no good without a proper strategy in place and football men running the club (Ashley has failed here totally).

 

Actually keeping KK in place with even a reasonable spend of say 25m net would have seen us having a respectable season.

 

Collo is a reasonable buy and one tiny step in the right direction, but then you have to weight Xisco and Nacho against that.

 

Let's not foget who ok'd the silly wages of Smith, Crappa et all either....Ashley and Wise oversaw all that debacle as well.

 

Now their last hope is to throw mud at the previous regime and make out high wages etc is a Newcastle problem...It's a PL problem.

 

It doesn't even seem to me like MA has learn't anything over his time here.

[NE5]

How many PL clubs run at a profit with no debt?

 

I'd be more curious to know which clubs run at a loss WITH debt.

 

Half the PL??

 

How many have owners who guarantee the debt?

 

Just saying you can't have your cake and eat it. Buying and selling players, hiring managers is a lottery. Look at the state Spurs are in and Liverpool will be in if they don't qual CL this season.

 

Thats the point, Liverpool will be in pretty much the same place as we are in now if they dont quaify. If that were to happen, they would go 2 ways, they will gamble like we did and pump more money in (if possilbe) or they'll sell players, id hazard a guess and say they'd sell.

 

What happened in 2004 to us, will be pretty much the saem situation that Liverpool would be in should they fail to qualify.

 

The decisoin to appoint Souness is the key to this whole arguement, the decision toback him heavily compunds that decison as it backfired spectacularly.

 

If a manager with merit was appointed and the gamble was the same, you'd still get your morons ciriticisng the appoinment and backing but the sensible ones will see the merits of the decison.

 

their current manager will certainly demand they buy, and their supporters would back him up

 

 

 

Providing he's hasnt been sacked for not qualifying...

 

he's been on the brink for the last 2 years for not winning the league, and I'm sure you'll take notice of that.

 

 

 

I dont think him not winning the league has anything to do with him "being on the brink", you're probably right about the fans wanting them to gamble - still wouldnt make the decision a correct one.

 

What do you think the fans would do if they sacked Rafa for failing to qualifiy then replaced him with Souness?

 

I haven't got a clue, maybe they will try replacing him with Roy Evans ?

 

 

 

You havent got a clue? I think you do but you dont want to admit it sonny, jimbob.

 

Well, yes, but the real question is if they will suffer the disgrace of "going backwards", or if they have a divine right to stay where they are forever. Do you think any scousers would then trace their demise down to signing Torres, Keane, Kuyt  and Masherano, and say it shouldn't have been done ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I dont see anyone saying the demise was down to signing Robert, Bellamy or Shearer, I see the majority of the people saying it was down to appointing Souness, backing him with so much money compunded that decision.

 

you can't criticise the decision, and the buys and sales he made, when you agreed with it all and backed it all right up the end. Not saying you did, I don't know if you did or not [did you say the other day that you did ?] but plenty of people DID, such as mandiarse for one.

 

The bigger picture being that they didn't purposely appoint a manager they knew would fuck up, he was THEIR choice, and they backed their choice. Shame soopa Mike didn't back his own appointment in the same way ?

 

Oops, I forgot. You agreed with soopa mike that we shouldn't spend ie waste, any money, didn't you.

 

 

 

You mean to say you cant support a decision even though you disagree with it? Thats eseentially what you're saying, I didnt agree with the decision to sack SBR but i supported the decision becasue as a fan thats what i do. I disagreed with the appointments of Roeder, Souness and even remember arguing with you amongst others about the appointment of Allardyce but at the end of the day i supported each and every appointment.

 

Your're right, i have no intention of trying to prove that Shepherd et al decidied to purposely appoint a bad manager, all i can do is highlight the dmetrimental affect it had on the club, which is what im doing. Someone has to be accountable for the decision to appointmnet a bad manager.

 

 

 

so you don't see that a numpty who says something like "souness is doing the right thing getting rid of the cancer like Alex ferguson did", or "mike ashley is doing the right thing by appointing a DOF (to undermine the manager)" and agreeing with these decisions, is different to saying you think it is a mistake but you hope it works out because you support the club ?

 

Of course you have the hindsight queens like mandiarse who has agreed with at least 3 of the last boards appointments on this very message board (and probably 4 but he's too modest to admit it), and their actions while they were the manager, but now denies it

 

 

[NE5]

Avoidance again! Are you a tory MP in disguise? Simple question. Answer it with one word yes or no.

 

Do you accept that the reason that we are in the state we are in financially is partially Freddy Shepherd's fault?

 

what have you got against Tories ? Do Labour, Liberal, BNP, UKIP mp's, or even Mike Ashley, always answer straight questions ?

 

I've told you, the Halls and Shepherd did a great job, they left the club unrecognisable and a million miles superior to how they found it, I wouldn't call that "blame", I would call it a great credit.

 

 

 

 

 

Sir you are a baboon then. If you believe perilously close to bankruptcy through bad management and mortgaging the club beyond belief with a bank which needed to be bailed out by the government itself was a fantastic thing then you are just mad. I cannot disagree that the football was great, but had Shepherd remained in charge we would have been bankrupted. Your head in the sand attitude and deluded belief that Freddy Shepherd was not a bad apple who was stinking out the barrel at Newcastle is astonishing. Sir John Hall had a vision for this club, which his son and Freddy Shepherd distorted and abused to make their own financial gains. While we are certainly miles away from where we were prior to Sir John Hall's intervention, it is laughable that you continue to stand up for Freddy Shepherd, a man who most others lost any respect they had for him when he was caught out by the NOTW with his contempt for his peers and his customers.

 

rubbish.

 

mackems.gif

 

Did you see many protestors standing up for their principles a few months after that "contempt for his peers and customers" when FA Cup Final tickets were being dished out, for the first time in 24 years, I may add.

 

When do you think the automatically better board will reach another Cup Final or even qualify for the UEFA Cup ?

 

 

 

Under Mike Ashley I don't think we will. But you keep on telling yourself that Freddy was a top bloke, and wasn't bothered first and foremost with lining his pockets from the money he could make from Newcastle United. I think Freddy Shepherd has a nerve telling anyone how to run Newcastle United as a successful business.

 

you find a post where I have said he was a "top bloke".

 

Apology accepted.

 

 

 

None given.

 

So will you now please answer my question. Is Freddy Shepherd (at least partially) responsible for Newcastle's financial state? Why can you not answer this yes or no? Why can't you stop waffling on about other things?

 

What are you talking about ? The saleable value of the club increased from 1.25m to anywhere between 100m and 200m quid while they ran it ?

 

 

 

Maybe you should go back to the financial statement thread and re-read it if you cannot understand what I am asking you about.

 

 

I think you should look at the league positions I posted and the history of the club if you don't understand exactly how much better off the club became while the Halls and shepherd ran it.

 

 

 

Thank you I know exactly what happened with the club when Sir John Hall came in. I can remember what it was like before he came in. And I know what happened when Sir John Hall and Freddy Shepherd were here in regards of football. I also know that Fred Shepherd mortgaged the club to the hilt and he was lucky not to financially ruin the club. I know that Mike Ashley was not the only person to look at the books with a view of taking over the club, but the mess Freddy Shepherd had made with the finances put everyone else off. I don't need a history lesson, but you need a reality check!

 

So, it's a mystery to you that the top 4 have massive debt??

man utd's is dropping dramatically, chelsea are fucked should abramovic walk away,arsenal have had to redefine their plans and liverpool are trying to sell up.

 

So you admit it takes massive expenditure and debt risk to gain a chance at success?

 

 

And when massive expenditure and debt buys only a steady decline until there's nothing left to borrow against?

 

 

 

Not as simple as that is it. People come into these threads (not you) saying FS is a cunt, KK is a cunt, Wise is a cunt etc...it's more complex than that (as you know). Sometimes little things go against you (Luque's career threateing inj or Boumsong being half decent) and history can be re-written.

 

 

And sometimes throwing money at the problem only makes things massively worse, if there's consistently poor decision-making in other areas.

 

 

The days when you could build a club with youth and cheap buys are long gone. You either compete and spend or you do what MA is doing...Shitting his large pants. The muppet.

 

And that ain't that simple either. What was Coloccini? Youth? Or a cheap buy?

 

 

 

I agree just throwing money at it is no good without a proper strategy in place and football men running the club (Ashley has failed here totally).

 

Actually keeping KK in place with even a reasonable spend of say 25m net would have seen us having a respectable season.

 

Collo is a reasonable buy and one tiny step in the right direction, but then you have to weight Xisco and Nacho against that.

 

Let's not foget who ok'd the silly wages of Smith, Crappa et all either....Ashley and Wise oversaw all that debacle as well.

 

Now their last hope is to throw mud at the previous regime and make out high wages etc is a Newcastle problem...It's a PL problem.

 

It doesn't even seem to me like MA has learn't anything over his time here.

 

[Mowen]

Avoidance again! Are you a tory MP in disguise? Simple question. Answer it with one word yes or no.

 

Do you accept that the reason that we are in the state we are in financially is partially Freddy Shepherd's fault?

 

what have you got against Tories ? Do Labour, Liberal, BNP, UKIP mp's, or even Mike Ashley, always answer straight questions ?

 

I've told you, the Halls and Shepherd did a great job, they left the club unrecognisable and a million miles superior to how they found it, I wouldn't call that "blame", I would call it a great credit.

 

 

 

 

 

Sir you are a baboon then. If you believe perilously close to bankruptcy through bad management and mortgaging the club beyond belief with a bank which needed to be bailed out by the government itself was a fantastic thing then you are just mad. I cannot disagree that the football was great, but had Shepherd remained in charge we would have been bankrupted. Your head in the sand attitude and deluded belief that Freddy Shepherd was not a bad apple who was stinking out the barrel at Newcastle is astonishing. Sir John Hall had a vision for this club, which his son and Freddy Shepherd distorted and abused to make their own financial gains. While we are certainly miles away from where we were prior to Sir John Hall's intervention, it is laughable that you continue to stand up for Freddy Shepherd, a man who most others lost any respect they had for him when he was caught out by the NOTW with his contempt for his peers and his customers.

 

rubbish.

 

mackems.gif

 

Did you see many protestors standing up for their principles a few months after that "contempt for his peers and customers" when FA Cup Final tickets were being dished out, for the first time in 24 years, I may add.

 

When do you think the automatically better board will reach another Cup Final or even qualify for the UEFA Cup ?

 

 

 

Under Mike Ashley I don't think we will. But you keep on telling yourself that Freddy was a top bloke, and wasn't bothered first and foremost with lining his pockets from the money he could make from Newcastle United. I think Freddy Shepherd has a nerve telling anyone how to run Newcastle United as a successful business.

 

you find a post where I have said he was a "top bloke".

 

Apology accepted.

 

 

 

None given.

 

So will you now please answer my question. Is Freddy Shepherd (at least partially) responsible for Newcastle's financial state? Why can you not answer this yes or no? Why can't you stop waffling on about other things?

 

What are you talking about ? The saleable value of the club increased from 1.25m to anywhere between 100m and 200m quid while they ran it ?

 

 

 

Maybe you should go back to the financial statement thread and re-read it if you cannot understand what I am asking you about.

 

 

I think you should look at the league positions I posted and the history of the club if you don't understand exactly how much better off the club became while the Halls and shepherd ran it.

 

 

 

Thank you I know exactly what happened with the club when Sir John Hall came in. I can remember what it was like before he came in. And I know what happened when Sir John Hall and Freddy Shepherd were here in regards of football. I also know that Fred Shepherd mortgaged the club to the hilt and he was lucky not to financially ruin the club. I know that Mike Ashley was not the only person to look at the books with a view of taking over the club, but the mess Freddy Shepherd had made with the finances put everyone else off. I don't need a history lesson, but you need a reality check!

 

So, it's a mystery to you that the top 4 have massive debt??

man utd's is dropping dramatically, chelsea are fucked should abramovic walk away,arsenal have had to redefine their plans and liverpool are trying to sell up.

 

So you admit it takes massive expenditure and debt risk to gain a chance at success?

 

 

And when massive expenditure and debt buys only a steady decline until there's nothing left to borrow against?

 

 

 

Not as simple as that is it. People come into these threads (not you) saying FS is a cunt, KK is a cunt, Wise is a cunt etc...it's more complex than that (as you know). Sometimes little things go against you (Luque's career threateing inj or Boumsong being half decent) and history can be re-written.

 

 

And sometimes throwing money at the problem only makes things massively worse, if there's consistently poor decision-making in other areas.

 

 

The days when you could build a club with youth and cheap buys are long gone. You either compete and spend or you do what MA is doing...Shitting his large pants. The muppet.

 

And that ain't that simple either. What was Coloccini? Youth? Or a cheap buy?

 

 

 

I agree just throwing money at it is no good without a proper strategy in place and football men running the club (Ashley has failed here totally).

 

Actually keeping KK in place with even a reasonable spend of say 25m net would have seen us having a respectable season.

 

Collo is a reasonable buy and one tiny step in the right direction, but then you have to weight Xisco and Nacho against that.

 

Let's not foget who ok'd the silly wages of Smith, Crappa et all either....Ashley and Wise oversaw all that debacle as well.

 

Now their last hope is to throw mud at the previous regime and make out high wages etc is a Newcastle problem...It's a PL problem.

 

It doesn't even seem to me like MA has learn't anything over his time here.

 

Bit pedantic, but Wise came in just after KK, nothing to do with Smith, Cacapa on high wages. Maybe they are part of the reason he did come in?

 

Other than that not much to disagree with, apart from the fact I think our wage bill is disgraceful for the quality of player we have. Had we managed to turn that round a bit I'd like to think a bit of spend would have seen us well off.

[madras]

Avoidance again! Are you a tory MP in disguise? Simple question. Answer it with one word yes or no.

 

Do you accept that the reason that we are in the state we are in financially is partially Freddy Shepherd's fault?

 

what have you got against Tories ? Do Labour, Liberal, BNP, UKIP mp's, or even Mike Ashley, always answer straight questions ?

 

I've told you, the Halls and Shepherd did a great job, they left the club unrecognisable and a million miles superior to how they found it, I wouldn't call that "blame", I would call it a great credit.

 

 

 

 

 

Sir you are a baboon then. If you believe perilously close to bankruptcy through bad management and mortgaging the club beyond belief with a bank which needed to be bailed out by the government itself was a fantastic thing then you are just mad. I cannot disagree that the football was great, but had Shepherd remained in charge we would have been bankrupted. Your head in the sand attitude and deluded belief that Freddy Shepherd was not a bad apple who was stinking out the barrel at Newcastle is astonishing. Sir John Hall had a vision for this club, which his son and Freddy Shepherd distorted and abused to make their own financial gains. While we are certainly miles away from where we were prior to Sir John Hall's intervention, it is laughable that you continue to stand up for Freddy Shepherd, a man who most others lost any respect they had for him when he was caught out by the NOTW with his contempt for his peers and his customers.

 

rubbish.

 

mackems.gif

 

Did you see many protestors standing up for their principles a few months after that "contempt for his peers and customers" when FA Cup Final tickets were being dished out, for the first time in 24 years, I may add.

 

When do you think the automatically better board will reach another Cup Final or even qualify for the UEFA Cup ?

 

 

 

Under Mike Ashley I don't think we will. But you keep on telling yourself that Freddy was a top bloke, and wasn't bothered first and foremost with lining his pockets from the money he could make from Newcastle United. I think Freddy Shepherd has a nerve telling anyone how to run Newcastle United as a successful business.

 

you find a post where I have said he was a "top bloke".

 

Apology accepted.

 

 

 

None given.

 

So will you now please answer my question. Is Freddy Shepherd (at least partially) responsible for Newcastle's financial state? Why can you not answer this yes or no? Why can't you stop waffling on about other things?

 

What are you talking about ? The saleable value of the club increased from 1.25m to anywhere between 100m and 200m quid while they ran it ?

 

 

 

Maybe you should go back to the financial statement thread and re-read it if you cannot understand what I am asking you about.

 

 

I think you should look at the league positions I posted and the history of the club if you don't understand exactly how much better off the club became while the Halls and shepherd ran it.

 

 

 

Thank you I know exactly what happened with the club when Sir John Hall came in. I can remember what it was like before he came in. And I know what happened when Sir John Hall and Freddy Shepherd were here in regards of football. I also know that Fred Shepherd mortgaged the club to the hilt and he was lucky not to financially ruin the club. I know that Mike Ashley was not the only person to look at the books with a view of taking over the club, but the mess Freddy Shepherd had made with the finances put everyone else off. I don't need a history lesson, but you need a reality check!

 

So, it's a mystery to you that the top 4 have massive debt??

man utd's is dropping dramatically, chelsea are f***ed should abramovic walk away,arsenal have had to redefine their plans and liverpool are trying to sell up.

 

So you admit it takes massive expenditure and debt risk to gain a chance at success?

 

 

And when massive expenditure and debt buys only a steady decline until there's nothing left to borrow against?

 

 

 

Not as simple as that is it. People come into these threads (not you) saying FS is a c***, KK is a c***, Wise is a c*** etc...it's more complex than that (as you know). Sometimes little things go against you (Luque's career threateing inj or Boumsong being half decent) and history can be re-written.

 

 

And sometimes throwing money at the problem only makes things massively worse, if there's consistently poor decision-making in other areas.

 

 

The days when you could build a club with youth and cheap buys are long gone. You either compete and spend or you do what MA is doing...Shitting his large pants. The muppet.

 

And that ain't that simple either. What was Coloccini? Youth? Or a cheap buy?

 

 

 

I agree just throwing money at it is no good without a proper strategy in place and football men running the club (Ashley has failed here totally).

 

Actually keeping KK in place with even a reasonable spend of say 25m net would have seen us having a respectable season.

 

Collo is a reasonable buy and one tiny step in the right direction, but then you have to weight Xisco and Nacho against that.

 

Let's not foget who ok'd the silly wages of Smith, Crappa et all either....Ashley and Wise oversaw all that debacle as well.

 

Now their last hope is to throw mud at the previous regime and make out high wages etc is a Newcastle problem...It's a PL problem.

 

It doesn't even seem to me like MA has learn't anything over his time here.

 

hey we agree...ashley has made his f*** ups aswell and it is a PL problem that clubs hocked themselves up and now have to find another way and it looks like us,west ham and pompey were the three in most trouble.

[Dave]

I agree with all that too.

 

What beats me is why NE5 feels the mistakes Ashley has made mitigate those Shepherd made, including the financial state of the club when he left.

 

They're both responsible for the position of NUFC right now, both on and off the pitch.

[NE5]

Avoidance again! Are you a tory MP in disguise? Simple question. Answer it with one word yes or no.

 

Do you accept that the reason that we are in the state we are in financially is partially Freddy Shepherd's fault?

 

what have you got against Tories ? Do Labour, Liberal, BNP, UKIP mp's, or even Mike Ashley, always answer straight questions ?

 

I've told you, the Halls and Shepherd did a great job, they left the club unrecognisable and a million miles superior to how they found it, I wouldn't call that "blame", I would call it a great credit.

 

 

 

 

 

Sir you are a baboon then. If you believe perilously close to bankruptcy through bad management and mortgaging the club beyond belief with a bank which needed to be bailed out by the government itself was a fantastic thing then you are just mad. I cannot disagree that the football was great, but had Shepherd remained in charge we would have been bankrupted. Your head in the sand attitude and deluded belief that Freddy Shepherd was not a bad apple who was stinking out the barrel at Newcastle is astonishing. Sir John Hall had a vision for this club, which his son and Freddy Shepherd distorted and abused to make their own financial gains. While we are certainly miles away from where we were prior to Sir John Hall's intervention, it is laughable that you continue to stand up for Freddy Shepherd, a man who most others lost any respect they had for him when he was caught out by the NOTW with his contempt for his peers and his customers.

 

rubbish.

 

mackems.gif

 

Did you see many protestors standing up for their principles a few months after that "contempt for his peers and customers" when FA Cup Final tickets were being dished out, for the first time in 24 years, I may add.

 

When do you think the automatically better board will reach another Cup Final or even qualify for the UEFA Cup ?

 

 

 

Under Mike Ashley I don't think we will. But you keep on telling yourself that Freddy was a top bloke, and wasn't bothered first and foremost with lining his pockets from the money he could make from Newcastle United. I think Freddy Shepherd has a nerve telling anyone how to run Newcastle United as a successful business.

 

you find a post where I have said he was a "top bloke".

 

Apology accepted.

 

 

 

None given.

 

So will you now please answer my question. Is Freddy Shepherd (at least partially) responsible for Newcastle's financial state? Why can you not answer this yes or no? Why can't you stop waffling on about other things?

 

What are you talking about ? The saleable value of the club increased from 1.25m to anywhere between 100m and 200m quid while they ran it ?

 

 

 

Maybe you should go back to the financial statement thread and re-read it if you cannot understand what I am asking you about.

 

 

I think you should look at the league positions I posted and the history of the club if you don't understand exactly how much better off the club became while the Halls and shepherd ran it.

 

 

 

Thank you I know exactly what happened with the club when Sir John Hall came in. I can remember what it was like before he came in. And I know what happened when Sir John Hall and Freddy Shepherd were here in regards of football. I also know that Fred Shepherd mortgaged the club to the hilt and he was lucky not to financially ruin the club. I know that Mike Ashley was not the only person to look at the books with a view of taking over the club, but the mess Freddy Shepherd had made with the finances put everyone else off. I don't need a history lesson, but you need a reality check!

 

So, it's a mystery to you that the top 4 have massive debt??

man utd's is dropping dramatically, chelsea are f***ed should abramovic walk away,arsenal have had to redefine their plans and liverpool are trying to sell up.

 

So you admit it takes massive expenditure and debt risk to gain a chance at success?

 

 

And when massive expenditure and debt buys only a steady decline until there's nothing left to borrow against?

 

 

 

Not as simple as that is it. People come into these threads (not you) saying FS is a c***, KK is a c***, Wise is a c*** etc...it's more complex than that (as you know). Sometimes little things go against you (Luque's career threateing inj or Boumsong being half decent) and history can be re-written.

 

 

And sometimes throwing money at the problem only makes things massively worse, if there's consistently poor decision-making in other areas.

 

 

The days when you could build a club with youth and cheap buys are long gone. You either compete and spend or you do what MA is doing...Shitting his large pants. The muppet.

 

And that ain't that simple either. What was Coloccini? Youth? Or a cheap buy?

 

 

 

I agree just throwing money at it is no good without a proper strategy in place and football men running the club (Ashley has failed here totally).

 

Actually keeping KK in place with even a reasonable spend of say 25m net would have seen us having a respectable season.

 

Collo is a reasonable buy and one tiny step in the right direction, but then you have to weight Xisco and Nacho against that.

 

Let's not foget who ok'd the silly wages of Smith, Crappa et all either....Ashley and Wise oversaw all that debacle as well.

 

Now their last hope is to throw mud at the previous regime and make out high wages etc is a Newcastle problem...It's a PL problem.

 

It doesn't even seem to me like MA has learn't anything over his time here.

 

hey we agree...ashley has made his f*** ups aswell and it is a PL problem that clubs hocked themselves up and now have to find another way and it looks like us,west ham and pompey were the three in most trouble.

 

no, I don't agree that we have to model ourselves on West Ham or pompey at all. As i said re the appointment of Allardyce, and when we signed Woodgate after spending loads of money to get back into the europe/Champions League [unlike the current regime who won't spend money to attempt to stay up], taking stock for a short while is OK but if you want to get back among the top teams, then you have to make big expenditure again, hopefully with a manager who will make good decisions in the lottery of the transfer market.

 

 

 

[madras]

Avoidance again! Are you a tory MP in disguise? Simple question. Answer it with one word yes or no.

 

Do you accept that the reason that we are in the state we are in financially is partially Freddy Shepherd's fault?

 

what have you got against Tories ? Do Labour, Liberal, BNP, UKIP mp's, or even Mike Ashley, always answer straight questions ?

 

I've told you, the Halls and Shepherd did a great job, they left the club unrecognisable and a million miles superior to how they found it, I wouldn't call that "blame", I would call it a great credit.

 

 

 

 

 

Sir you are a baboon then. If you believe perilously close to bankruptcy through bad management and mortgaging the club beyond belief with a bank which needed to be bailed out by the government itself was a fantastic thing then you are just mad. I cannot disagree that the football was great, but had Shepherd remained in charge we would have been bankrupted. Your head in the sand attitude and deluded belief that Freddy Shepherd was not a bad apple who was stinking out the barrel at Newcastle is astonishing. Sir John Hall had a vision for this club, which his son and Freddy Shepherd distorted and abused to make their own financial gains. While we are certainly miles away from where we were prior to Sir John Hall's intervention, it is laughable that you continue to stand up for Freddy Shepherd, a man who most others lost any respect they had for him when he was caught out by the NOTW with his contempt for his peers and his customers.

 

rubbish.

 

mackems.gif

 

Did you see many protestors standing up for their principles a few months after that "contempt for his peers and customers" when FA Cup Final tickets were being dished out, for the first time in 24 years, I may add.

 

When do you think the automatically better board will reach another Cup Final or even qualify for the UEFA Cup ?

 

 

 

Under Mike Ashley I don't think we will. But you keep on telling yourself that Freddy was a top bloke, and wasn't bothered first and foremost with lining his pockets from the money he could make from Newcastle United. I think Freddy Shepherd has a nerve telling anyone how to run Newcastle United as a successful business.

 

you find a post where I have said he was a "top bloke".

 

Apology accepted.

 

 

 

None given.

 

So will you now please answer my question. Is Freddy Shepherd (at least partially) responsible for Newcastle's financial state? Why can you not answer this yes or no? Why can't you stop waffling on about other things?

 

What are you talking about ? The saleable value of the club increased from 1.25m to anywhere between 100m and 200m quid while they ran it ?

 

 

 

Maybe you should go back to the financial statement thread and re-read it if you cannot understand what I am asking you about.

 

 

I think you should look at the league positions I posted and the history of the club if you don't understand exactly how much better off the club became while the Halls and shepherd ran it.

 

 

 

Thank you I know exactly what happened with the club when Sir John Hall came in. I can remember what it was like before he came in. And I know what happened when Sir John Hall and Freddy Shepherd were here in regards of football. I also know that Fred Shepherd mortgaged the club to the hilt and he was lucky not to financially ruin the club. I know that Mike Ashley was not the only person to look at the books with a view of taking over the club, but the mess Freddy Shepherd had made with the finances put everyone else off. I don't need a history lesson, but you need a reality check!

 

So, it's a mystery to you that the top 4 have massive debt??

man utd's is dropping dramatically, chelsea are f***ed should abramovic walk away,arsenal have had to redefine their plans and liverpool are trying to sell up.

 

So you admit it takes massive expenditure and debt risk to gain a chance at success?

 

 

And when massive expenditure and debt buys only a steady decline until there's nothing left to borrow against?

 

 

 

Not as simple as that is it. People come into these threads (not you) saying FS is a c***, KK is a c***, Wise is a c*** etc...it's more complex than that (as you know). Sometimes little things go against you (Luque's career threateing inj or Boumsong being half decent) and history can be re-written.

 

 

And sometimes throwing money at the problem only makes things massively worse, if there's consistently poor decision-making in other areas.

 

 

The days when you could build a club with youth and cheap buys are long gone. You either compete and spend or you do what MA is doing...Shitting his large pants. The muppet.

 

And that ain't that simple either. What was Coloccini? Youth? Or a cheap buy?

 

 

 

I agree just throwing money at it is no good without a proper strategy in place and football men running the club (Ashley has failed here totally).

 

Actually keeping KK in place with even a reasonable spend of say 25m net would have seen us having a respectable season.

 

Collo is a reasonable buy and one tiny step in the right direction, but then you have to weight Xisco and Nacho against that.

 

Let's not foget who ok'd the silly wages of Smith, Crappa et all either....Ashley and Wise oversaw all that debacle as well.

 

Now their last hope is to throw mud at the previous regime and make out high wages etc is a Newcastle problem...It's a PL problem.

 

It doesn't even seem to me like MA has learn't anything over his time here.

 

hey we agree...ashley has made his f*** ups aswell and it is a PL problem that clubs hocked themselves up and now have to find another way and it looks like us,west ham and pompey were the three in most trouble.

 

no, I don't agree that we have to model ourselves on West Ham or pompey at all. As i said re the appointment of Allardyce, and when we signed Woodgate after spending loads of money to get back into the europe/Champions League [unlike the current regime who won't spend money to attempt to stay up], taking stock for a short while is OK but if you want to get back among the top teams, then you have to make big expenditure again.

 

 

where was the money going to come from ?

 

and i didn't say we had to model ourselves on them,what i said you sly twister of context you, was that we were the three in most trouble and neither od us could carry on going the way we were.

[NE5]

Avoidance again! Are you a tory MP in disguise? Simple question. Answer it with one word yes or no.

 

Do you accept that the reason that we are in the state we are in financially is partially Freddy Shepherd's fault?

 

what have you got against Tories ? Do Labour, Liberal, BNP, UKIP mp's, or even Mike Ashley, always answer straight questions ?

 

I've told you, the Halls and Shepherd did a great job, they left the club unrecognisable and a million miles superior to how they found it, I wouldn't call that "blame", I would call it a great credit.

 

 

 

 

 

Sir you are a baboon then. If you believe perilously close to bankruptcy through bad management and mortgaging the club beyond belief with a bank which needed to be bailed out by the government itself was a fantastic thing then you are just mad. I cannot disagree that the football was great, but had Shepherd remained in charge we would have been bankrupted. Your head in the sand attitude and deluded belief that Freddy Shepherd was not a bad apple who was stinking out the barrel at Newcastle is astonishing. Sir John Hall had a vision for this club, which his son and Freddy Shepherd distorted and abused to make their own financial gains. While we are certainly miles away from where we were prior to Sir John Hall's intervention, it is laughable that you continue to stand up for Freddy Shepherd, a man who most others lost any respect they had for him when he was caught out by the NOTW with his contempt for his peers and his customers.

 

rubbish.

 

mackems.gif

 

Did you see many protestors standing up for their principles a few months after that "contempt for his peers and customers" when FA Cup Final tickets were being dished out, for the first time in 24 years, I may add.

 

When do you think the automatically better board will reach another Cup Final or even qualify for the UEFA Cup ?

 

 

 

Under Mike Ashley I don't think we will. But you keep on telling yourself that Freddy was a top bloke, and wasn't bothered first and foremost with lining his pockets from the money he could make from Newcastle United. I think Freddy Shepherd has a nerve telling anyone how to run Newcastle United as a successful business.

 

you find a post where I have said he was a "top bloke".

 

Apology accepted.

 

 

 

None given.

 

So will you now please answer my question. Is Freddy Shepherd (at least partially) responsible for Newcastle's financial state? Why can you not answer this yes or no? Why can't you stop waffling on about other things?

 

What are you talking about ? The saleable value of the club increased from 1.25m to anywhere between 100m and 200m quid while they ran it ?

 

 

 

Maybe you should go back to the financial statement thread and re-read it if you cannot understand what I am asking you about.

 

 

I think you should look at the league positions I posted and the history of the club if you don't understand exactly how much better off the club became while the Halls and shepherd ran it.

 

 

 

Thank you I know exactly what happened with the club when Sir John Hall came in. I can remember what it was like before he came in. And I know what happened when Sir John Hall and Freddy Shepherd were here in regards of football. I also know that Fred Shepherd mortgaged the club to the hilt and he was lucky not to financially ruin the club. I know that Mike Ashley was not the only person to look at the books with a view of taking over the club, but the mess Freddy Shepherd had made with the finances put everyone else off. I don't need a history lesson, but you need a reality check!

 

So, it's a mystery to you that the top 4 have massive debt??

man utd's is dropping dramatically, chelsea are f***ed should abramovic walk away,arsenal have had to redefine their plans and liverpool are trying to sell up.

 

So you admit it takes massive expenditure and debt risk to gain a chance at success?

 

 

And when massive expenditure and debt buys only a steady decline until there's nothing left to borrow against?

 

 

 

Not as simple as that is it. People come into these threads (not you) saying FS is a c***, KK is a c***, Wise is a c*** etc...it's more complex than that (as you know). Sometimes little things go against you (Luque's career threateing inj or Boumsong being half decent) and history can be re-written.

 

 

And sometimes throwing money at the problem only makes things massively worse, if there's consistently poor decision-making in other areas.

 

 

The days when you could build a club with youth and cheap buys are long gone. You either compete and spend or you do what MA is doing...Shitting his large pants. The muppet.

 

And that ain't that simple either. What was Coloccini? Youth? Or a cheap buy?

 

 

 

I agree just throwing money at it is no good without a proper strategy in place and football men running the club (Ashley has failed here totally).

 

Actually keeping KK in place with even a reasonable spend of say 25m net would have seen us having a respectable season.

 

Collo is a reasonable buy and one tiny step in the right direction, but then you have to weight Xisco and Nacho against that.

 

Let's not foget who ok'd the silly wages of Smith, Crappa et all either....Ashley and Wise oversaw all that debacle as well.

 

Now their last hope is to throw mud at the previous regime and make out high wages etc is a Newcastle problem...It's a PL problem.

 

It doesn't even seem to me like MA has learn't anything over his time here.

 

hey we agree...ashley has made his f*** ups aswell and it is a PL problem that clubs hocked themselves up and now have to find another way and it looks like us,west ham and pompey were the three in most trouble.

 

no, I don't agree that we have to model ourselves on West Ham or pompey at all. As i said re the appointment of Allardyce, and when we signed Woodgate after spending loads of money to get back into the europe/Champions League [unlike the current regime who won't spend money to attempt to stay up], taking stock for a short while is OK but if you want to get back among the top teams, then you have to make big expenditure again.

 

 

where was the money going to come from ?

 

and i didn't say we had to model ourselves on them,what i said you sly twister of context you, was that we were the three in most trouble and neither od us could carry on going the way we were.

 

not from selling or losing their best players, thats for sure. Hopefully, we can capitalise on being a bigger club in all respects than most others, especially clubs like West Ham and Portsmouth, but that sort of ambition only comes out of the boardroom. I take it you have seen parkys post, where he explains that none of the solvent clubs are anywhere near the top 4, if there are any solvent clubs at all.

 

 

[Dave]

So where would it come from?

[madras]

Avoidance again! Are you a tory MP in disguise? Simple question. Answer it with one word yes or no.

 

Do you accept that the reason that we are in the state we are in financially is partially Freddy Shepherd's fault?

 

what have you got against Tories ? Do Labour, Liberal, BNP, UKIP mp's, or even Mike Ashley, always answer straight questions ?

 

I've told you, the Halls and Shepherd did a great job, they left the club unrecognisable and a million miles superior to how they found it, I wouldn't call that "blame", I would call it a great credit.

 

 

 

 

 

Sir you are a baboon then. If you believe perilously close to bankruptcy through bad management and mortgaging the club beyond belief with a bank which needed to be bailed out by the government itself was a fantastic thing then you are just mad. I cannot disagree that the football was great, but had Shepherd remained in charge we would have been bankrupted. Your head in the sand attitude and deluded belief that Freddy Shepherd was not a bad apple who was stinking out the barrel at Newcastle is astonishing. Sir John Hall had a vision for this club, which his son and Freddy Shepherd distorted and abused to make their own financial gains. While we are certainly miles away from where we were prior to Sir John Hall's intervention, it is laughable that you continue to stand up for Freddy Shepherd, a man who most others lost any respect they had for him when he was caught out by the NOTW with his contempt for his peers and his customers.

 

rubbish.

 

mackems.gif

 

Did you see many protestors standing up for their principles a few months after that "contempt for his peers and customers" when FA Cup Final tickets were being dished out, for the first time in 24 years, I may add.

 

When do you think the automatically better board will reach another Cup Final or even qualify for the UEFA Cup ?

 

 

 

Under Mike Ashley I don't think we will. But you keep on telling yourself that Freddy was a top bloke, and wasn't bothered first and foremost with lining his pockets from the money he could make from Newcastle United. I think Freddy Shepherd has a nerve telling anyone how to run Newcastle United as a successful business.

 

you find a post where I have said he was a "top bloke".

 

Apology accepted.

 

 

 

None given.

 

So will you now please answer my question. Is Freddy Shepherd (at least partially) responsible for Newcastle's financial state? Why can you not answer this yes or no? Why can't you stop waffling on about other things?

 

What are you talking about ? The saleable value of the club increased from 1.25m to anywhere between 100m and 200m quid while they ran it ?

 

 

 

Maybe you should go back to the financial statement thread and re-read it if you cannot understand what I am asking you about.

 

 

I think you should look at the league positions I posted and the history of the club if you don't understand exactly how much better off the club became while the Halls and shepherd ran it.

 

 

 

Thank you I know exactly what happened with the club when Sir John Hall came in. I can remember what it was like before he came in. And I know what happened when Sir John Hall and Freddy Shepherd were here in regards of football. I also know that Fred Shepherd mortgaged the club to the hilt and he was lucky not to financially ruin the club. I know that Mike Ashley was not the only person to look at the books with a view of taking over the club, but the mess Freddy Shepherd had made with the finances put everyone else off. I don't need a history lesson, but you need a reality check!

 

So, it's a mystery to you that the top 4 have massive debt??

man utd's is dropping dramatically, chelsea are f***ed should abramovic walk away,arsenal have had to redefine their plans and liverpool are trying to sell up.

 

So you admit it takes massive expenditure and debt risk to gain a chance at success?

 

 

And when massive expenditure and debt buys only a steady decline until there's nothing left to borrow against?

 

 

 

Not as simple as that is it. People come into these threads (not you) saying FS is a c***, KK is a c***, Wise is a c*** etc...it's more complex than that (as you know). Sometimes little things go against you (Luque's career threateing inj or Boumsong being half decent) and history can be re-written.

 

 

And sometimes throwing money at the problem only makes things massively worse, if there's consistently poor decision-making in other areas.

 

 

The days when you could build a club with youth and cheap buys are long gone. You either compete and spend or you do what MA is doing...Shitting his large pants. The muppet.

 

And that ain't that simple either. What was Coloccini? Youth? Or a cheap buy?

 

 

 

I agree just throwing money at it is no good without a proper strategy in place and football men running the club (Ashley has failed here totally).

 

Actually keeping KK in place with even a reasonable spend of say 25m net would have seen us having a respectable season.

 

Collo is a reasonable buy and one tiny step in the right direction, but then you have to weight Xisco and Nacho against that.

 

Let's not foget who ok'd the silly wages of Smith, Crappa et all either....Ashley and Wise oversaw all that debacle as well.

 

Now their last hope is to throw mud at the previous regime and make out high wages etc is a Newcastle problem...It's a PL problem.

 

It doesn't even seem to me like MA has learn't anything over his time here.

 

hey we agree...ashley has made his f*** ups aswell and it is a PL problem that clubs hocked themselves up and now have to find another way and it looks like us,west ham and pompey were the three in most trouble.

 

no, I don't agree that we have to model ourselves on West Ham or pompey at all. As i said re the appointment of Allardyce, and when we signed Woodgate after spending loads of money to get back into the europe/Champions League [unlike the current regime who won't spend money to attempt to stay up], taking stock for a short while is OK but if you want to get back among the top teams, then you have to make big expenditure again.

 

 

where was the money going to come from ?

 

and i didn't say we had to model ourselves on them,what i said you sly twister of context you, was that we were the three in most trouble and neither od us could carry on going the way we were.

 

not from selling or losing their best players, thats for sure. Hopefully, we can capitalise on being a bigger club in all respects than most others, especially clubs like West Ham and Portsmouth, but that sort of ambition only comes out of the boardroom. I take it you have seen parkys post, where he explains that none of the solvent clubs are anywhere near the top 4, if there are any solvent clubs at all.

 

 

and i hope you have read enough of my posts about the debts of others,particularly the top 4.

 

where would the money come from in our case ?

[Thespence]

Remember Fred speaks on Inside Out the morrow on BBC 1/945 or whatever BBC NE is on SKY.

[NE5]

So where would it come from?

 

where has the money from all the other clubs came from ie apart from Chelsea and Man City ?

 

My earlier question/point was exactly the same question. The point others are making seems to be that they would be happy to stop competing and support a solvent club that spends years not attempting to make a challenge ? And my view of that is personally, I wouldn't want that because I've seen it, and the real effects of it, and also those that think they want it, wouldn't like it at all if they got it, just like now they don't like Ashley now the automatic improvement they expected with "any" new owner hasn't happened(although getting them to admit it is like pulling teeth)

 

Parky has put it quite nicely in fact. They are deliberately throwing mud at the old regime because its a last resort and people are fallign for it.

 

 

[Dave]

So where would it come from?

 

where has the money from all the other clubs came from ie apart from Chelsea and Man City ?

 

My earlier question/point was exactly the same question. The point others are making seems to be that they would be happy to stop competing and support a solvent club that spends years not attempting to make a challenge ? And my view of that is personally, I wouldn't want that because I've seen it, and the real effects of it, and also those that think they want it, wouldn't like it at all if they got it, just like now they don't like Ashley now the automatic improvement they expected with "any" new owner hasn't happened(although getting them to admit it is like pulling teeth)

 

 

 

Completely ignored my question and yet again put a set of words in mine and others' mouths.

 

Good stuff, cheers.

[madras]

So where would it come from?

 

where has the money from all the other clubs came from ie apart from Chelsea and Man City ?

 

My earlier question/point was exactly the same question. The point others are making seems to be that they would be happy to stop competing and support a solvent club that spends years not attempting to make a challenge ? And my view of that is personally, I wouldn't want that because I've seen it, and the real effects of it, and also those that think they want it, wouldn't like it at all if they got it, just like now they don't like Ashley now the automatic improvement they expected with "any" new owner hasn't happened(although getting them to admit it is like pulling teeth)

 

Parky has put it quite nicely in fact. They are deliberately throwing mud at the old regime because its a last resort and people are fallign for it.

 

 

yhe money for all the other clubs came from debt (although in man u and liverpools cases their debt came from the purchase of thier clubs......massivly reduced in man u's case and enough for liverpools to look for buyers).......in just about all other cases the debt hasn't been as big as ours, they didn't make as much of a yearly loss  to be able to finance the debt as we did and they are cutting back and trying to live within their means aswell.

 

where was the cash going to come from inour case ?

 

would you have gone to the banks, tried to get more (not certain they'd have got it) and with no plan beyond "it may bring success and we have no plan if it doesn't" ?

[Dr Venkman]

So where would it come from?

 

where has the money from all the other clubs came from ie apart from Chelsea and Man City ?

 

My earlier question/point was exactly the same question. The point others are making seems to be that they would be happy to stop competing and support a solvent club that spends years not attempting to make a challenge ? And my view of that is personally, I wouldn't want that because I've seen it, and the real effects of it, and also those that think they want it, wouldn't like it at all if they got it, just like now they don't like Ashley now the automatic improvement they expected with "any" new owner hasn't happened(although getting them to admit it is like pulling teeth)

 

 

 

Completely ignored my question and yet again put a set of words in mine and others' mouths.

 

Good stuff, cheers.

 

its never, ever worth it mate

[madras]

So where would it come from?

 

where has the money from all the other clubs came from ie apart from Chelsea and Man City ?

 

My earlier question/point was exactly the same question. The point others are making seems to be that they would be happy to stop competing and support a solvent club that spends years not attempting to make a challenge ? And my view of that is personally, I wouldn't want that because I've seen it, and the real effects of it, and also those that think they want it, wouldn't like it at all if they got it, just like now they don't like Ashley now the automatic improvement they expected with "any" new owner hasn't happened(although getting them to admit it is like pulling teeth)

 

 

 

Completely ignored my question and yet again put a set of words in mine and others' mouths.

 

Good stuff, cheers.

 

its never, ever worth it mate

don't be too harsh. NE5 is performing a service. a bit like an internet scratching post

[fredbob]

How many PL clubs run at a profit with no debt?

 

I'd be more curious to know which clubs run at a loss WITH debt.

 

Half the PL??

 

How many have owners who guarantee the debt?

 

Just saying you can't have your cake and eat it. Buying and selling players, hiring managers is a lottery. Look at the state Spurs are in and Liverpool will be in if they don't qual CL this season.

 

Thats the point, Liverpool will be in pretty much the same place as we are in now if they dont quaify. If that were to happen, they would go 2 ways, they will gamble like we did and pump more money in (if possilbe) or they'll sell players, id hazard a guess and say they'd sell.

 

What happened in 2004 to us, will be pretty much the saem situation that Liverpool would be in should they fail to qualify.

 

The decisoin to appoint Souness is the key to this whole arguement, the decision toback him heavily compunds that decison as it backfired spectacularly.

 

If a manager with merit was appointed and the gamble was the same, you'd still get your morons ciriticisng the appoinment and backing but the sensible ones will see the merits of the decison.

 

their current manager will certainly demand they buy, and their supporters would back him up

 

 

 

Providing he's hasnt been sacked for not qualifying...

 

he's been on the brink for the last 2 years for not winning the league, and I'm sure you'll take notice of that.

 

 

 

I dont think him not winning the league has anything to do with him "being on the brink", you're probably right about the fans wanting them to gamble - still wouldnt make the decision a correct one.

 

What do you think the fans would do if they sacked Rafa for failing to qualifiy then replaced him with Souness?

 

I haven't got a clue, maybe they will try replacing him with Roy Evans ?

 

 

 

You havent got a clue? I think you do but you dont want to admit it sonny, jimbob.

 

Well, yes, but the real question is if they will suffer the disgrace of "going backwards", or if they have a divine right to stay where they are forever. Do you think any scousers would then trace their demise down to signing Torres, Keane, Kuyt  and Masherano, and say it shouldn't have been done ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I dont see anyone saying the demise was down to signing Robert, Bellamy or Shearer, I see the majority of the people saying it was down to appointing Souness, backing him with so much money compunded that decision.

 

you can't criticise the decision, and the buys and sales he made, when you agreed with it all and backed it all right up the end. Not saying you did, I don't know if you did or not [did you say the other day that you did ?] but plenty of people DID, such as mandiarse for one.

 

The bigger picture being that they didn't purposely appoint a manager they knew would fuck up, he was THEIR choice, and they backed their choice. Shame soopa Mike didn't back his own appointment in the same way ?

 

Oops, I forgot. You agreed with soopa mike that we shouldn't spend ie waste, any money, didn't you.

 

 

 

You mean to say you cant support a decision even though you disagree with it? Thats eseentially what you're saying, I didnt agree with the decision to sack SBR but i supported the decision becasue as a fan thats what i do. I disagreed with the appointments of Roeder, Souness and even remember arguing with you amongst others about the appointment of Allardyce but at the end of the day i supported each and every appointment.

 

Your're right, i have no intention of trying to prove that Shepherd et al decidied to purposely appoint a bad manager, all i can do is highlight the dmetrimental affect it had on the club, which is what im doing. Someone has to be accountable for the decision to appointmnet a bad manager.

 

 

 

so you don't see that a numpty who says something like "souness is doing the right thing getting rid of the cancer like Alex ferguson did", or "mike ashley is doing the right thing by appointing a DOF (to undermine the manager)" and agreeing with these decisions, is different to saying you think it is a mistake but you hope it works out because you support the club ?

 

Of course you have the hindsight queens like mandiarse who has agreed with at least 3 of the last boards appointments on this very message board (and probably 4 but he's too modest to admit it), and their actions while they were the manager, but now denies it

 

 

 

Actually i do see your point, if they supported the decsion and agreed with the decision then they should be in no posiiton to cirticise that decision, thats a fair point, but thats a personal thing and nothing to do with the big issue.

 

For what its worth i agree with the DOF sysytem, it has its merits.

[Thespence]

How many PL clubs run at a profit with no debt?

 

I'd be more curious to know which clubs run at a loss WITH debt.

 

Half the PL??

 

How many have owners who guarantee the debt?

 

Just saying you can't have your cake and eat it. Buying and selling players, hiring managers is a lottery. Look at the state Spurs are in and Liverpool will be in if they don't qual CL this season.

 

Thats the point, Liverpool will be in pretty much the same place as we are in now if they dont quaify. If that were to happen, they would go 2 ways, they will gamble like we did and pump more money in (if possilbe) or they'll sell players, id hazard a guess and say they'd sell.

 

What happened in 2004 to us, will be pretty much the saem situation that Liverpool would be in should they fail to qualify.

 

The decisoin to appoint Souness is the key to this whole arguement, the decision toback him heavily compunds that decison as it backfired spectacularly.

 

If a manager with merit was appointed and the gamble was the same, you'd still get your morons ciriticisng the appoinment and backing but the sensible ones will see the merits of the decison.

 

their current manager will certainly demand they buy, and their supporters would back him up

 

 

 

Providing he's hasnt been sacked for not qualifying...

 

he's been on the brink for the last 2 years for not winning the league, and I'm sure you'll take notice of that.

 

 

 

I dont think him not winning the league has anything to do with him "being on the brink", you're probably right about the fans wanting them to gamble - still wouldnt make the decision a correct one.

 

What do you think the fans would do if they sacked Rafa for failing to qualifiy then replaced him with Souness?

 

I haven't got a clue, maybe they will try replacing him with Roy Evans ?

 

 

 

You havent got a clue? I think you do but you dont want to admit it sonny, jimbob.

 

Well, yes, but the real question is if they will suffer the disgrace of "going backwards", or if they have a divine right to stay where they are forever. Do you think any scousers would then trace their demise down to signing Torres, Keane, Kuyt  and Masherano, and say it shouldn't have been done ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I dont see anyone saying the demise was down to signing Robert, Bellamy or Shearer, I see the majority of the people saying it was down to appointing Souness, backing him with so much money compunded that decision.

 

you can't criticise the decision, and the buys and sales he made, when you agreed with it all and backed it all right up the end. Not saying you did, I don't know if you did or not [did you say the other day that you did ?] but plenty of people DID, such as mandiarse for one.

 

The bigger picture being that they didn't purposely appoint a manager they knew would f*** up, he was THEIR choice, and they backed their choice. Shame soopa Mike didn't back his own appointment in the same way ?

 

Oops, I forgot. You agreed with soopa mike that we shouldn't spend ie waste, any money, didn't you.

 

 

 

You mean to say you cant support a decision even though you disagree with it? Thats eseentially what you're saying, I didnt agree with the decision to sack SBR but i supported the decision becasue as a fan thats what i do. I disagreed with the appointments of Roeder, Souness and even remember arguing with you amongst others about the appointment of Allardyce but at the end of the day i supported each and every appointment.

 

Your're right, i have no intention of trying to prove that Shepherd et al decidied to purposely appoint a bad manager, all i can do is highlight the dmetrimental affect it had on the club, which is what im doing. Someone has to be accountable for the decision to appointmnet a bad manager.

 

 

 

so you don't see that a numpty who says something like "souness is doing the right thing getting rid of the cancer like Alex ferguson did", or "mike ashley is doing the right thing by appointing a DOF (to undermine the manager)" and agreeing with these decisions, is different to saying you think it is a mistake but you hope it works out because you support the club ?

 

Of course you have the hindsight queens like mandiarse who has agreed with at least 3 of the last boards appointments on this very message board (and probably 4 but he's too modest to admit it), and their actions while they were the manager, but now denies it

 

 

 

Actually i do see your point, if they supported the decsion and agreed with the decision then they should be in no posiiton to cirticise that decision, thats a fair point, but thats a personal thing and nothing to do with the big issue.

 

For what its worth i agree with the DOF sysytem, it has its merits.

 

Without of shadow of doubt it does we just had the wrong people in place.

[fredbob]

How many PL clubs run at a profit with no debt?

 

I'd be more curious to know which clubs run at a loss WITH debt.

 

Half the PL??

 

How many have owners who guarantee the debt?

 

Just saying you can't have your cake and eat it. Buying and selling players, hiring managers is a lottery. Look at the state Spurs are in and Liverpool will be in if they don't qual CL this season.

 

Thats the point, Liverpool will be in pretty much the same place as we are in now if they dont quaify. If that were to happen, they would go 2 ways, they will gamble like we did and pump more money in (if possilbe) or they'll sell players, id hazard a guess and say they'd sell.

 

What happened in 2004 to us, will be pretty much the saem situation that Liverpool would be in should they fail to qualify.

 

The decisoin to appoint Souness is the key to this whole arguement, the decision toback him heavily compunds that decison as it backfired spectacularly.

 

If a manager with merit was appointed and the gamble was the same, you'd still get your morons ciriticisng the appoinment and backing but the sensible ones will see the merits of the decison.

 

their current manager will certainly demand they buy, and their supporters would back him up

 

 

 

Providing he's hasnt been sacked for not qualifying...

 

he's been on the brink for the last 2 years for not winning the league, and I'm sure you'll take notice of that.

 

 

 

I dont think him not winning the league has anything to do with him "being on the brink", you're probably right about the fans wanting them to gamble - still wouldnt make the decision a correct one.

 

What do you think the fans would do if they sacked Rafa for failing to qualifiy then replaced him with Souness?

 

I haven't got a clue, maybe they will try replacing him with Roy Evans ?

 

 

 

You havent got a clue? I think you do but you dont want to admit it sonny, jimbob.

 

Well, yes, but the real question is if they will suffer the disgrace of "going backwards", or if they have a divine right to stay where they are forever. Do you think any scousers would then trace their demise down to signing Torres, Keane, Kuyt  and Masherano, and say it shouldn't have been done ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I dont see anyone saying the demise was down to signing Robert, Bellamy or Shearer, I see the majority of the people saying it was down to appointing Souness, backing him with so much money compunded that decision.

 

you can't criticise the decision, and the buys and sales he made, when you agreed with it all and backed it all right up the end. Not saying you did, I don't know if you did or not [did you say the other day that you did ?] but plenty of people DID, such as mandiarse for one.

 

The bigger picture being that they didn't purposely appoint a manager they knew would f*** up, he was THEIR choice, and they backed their choice. Shame soopa Mike didn't back his own appointment in the same way ?

 

Oops, I forgot. You agreed with soopa mike that we shouldn't spend ie waste, any money, didn't you.

 

 

 

You mean to say you cant support a decision even though you disagree with it? Thats eseentially what you're saying, I didnt agree with the decision to sack SBR but i supported the decision becasue as a fan thats what i do. I disagreed with the appointments of Roeder, Souness and even remember arguing with you amongst others about the appointment of Allardyce but at the end of the day i supported each and every appointment.

 

Your're right, i have no intention of trying to prove that Shepherd et al decidied to purposely appoint a bad manager, all i can do is highlight the dmetrimental affect it had on the club, which is what im doing. Someone has to be accountable for the decision to appointmnet a bad manager.

 

 

 

so you don't see that a numpty who says something like "souness is doing the right thing getting rid of the cancer like Alex ferguson did", or "mike ashley is doing the right thing by appointing a DOF (to undermine the manager)" and agreeing with these decisions, is different to saying you think it is a mistake but you hope it works out because you support the club ?

 

Of course you have the hindsight queens like mandiarse who has agreed with at least 3 of the last boards appointments on this very message board (and probably 4 but he's too modest to admit it), and their actions while they were the manager, but now denies it

 

 

 

Actually i do see your point, if they supported the decsion and agreed with the decision then they should be in no posiiton to cirticise that decision, thats a fair point, but thats a personal thing and nothing to do with the big issue.

 

For what its worth i agree with the DOF sysytem, it has its merits.

 

Without of shadow of doubt it does we just had the wrong people in place.

 

Or did we have the wrong manager in place?

[Thespence]

How many PL clubs run at a profit with no debt?

 

I'd be more curious to know which clubs run at a loss WITH debt.

 

Half the PL??

 

How many have owners who guarantee the debt?

 

Just saying you can't have your cake and eat it. Buying and selling players, hiring managers is a lottery. Look at the state Spurs are in and Liverpool will be in if they don't qual CL this season.

 

Thats the point, Liverpool will be in pretty much the same place as we are in now if they dont quaify. If that were to happen, they would go 2 ways, they will gamble like we did and pump more money in (if possilbe) or they'll sell players, id hazard a guess and say they'd sell.

 

What happened in 2004 to us, will be pretty much the saem situation that Liverpool would be in should they fail to qualify.

 

The decisoin to appoint Souness is the key to this whole arguement, the decision toback him heavily compunds that decison as it backfired spectacularly.

 

If a manager with merit was appointed and the gamble was the same, you'd still get your morons ciriticisng the appoinment and backing but the sensible ones will see the merits of the decison.

 

their current manager will certainly demand they buy, and their supporters would back him up

 

 

 

Providing he's hasnt been sacked for not qualifying...

 

he's been on the brink for the last 2 years for not winning the league, and I'm sure you'll take notice of that.

 

 

 

I dont think him not winning the league has anything to do with him "being on the brink", you're probably right about the fans wanting them to gamble - still wouldnt make the decision a correct one.

 

What do you think the fans would do if they sacked Rafa for failing to qualifiy then replaced him with Souness?

 

I haven't got a clue, maybe they will try replacing him with Roy Evans ?

 

 

 

You havent got a clue? I think you do but you dont want to admit it sonny, jimbob.

 

Well, yes, but the real question is if they will suffer the disgrace of "going backwards", or if they have a divine right to stay where they are forever. Do you think any scousers would then trace their demise down to signing Torres, Keane, Kuyt  and Masherano, and say it shouldn't have been done ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I dont see anyone saying the demise was down to signing Robert, Bellamy or Shearer, I see the majority of the people saying it was down to appointing Souness, backing him with so much money compunded that decision.

 

you can't criticise the decision, and the buys and sales he made, when you agreed with it all and backed it all right up the end. Not saying you did, I don't know if you did or not [did you say the other day that you did ?] but plenty of people DID, such as mandiarse for one.

 

The bigger picture being that they didn't purposely appoint a manager they knew would f*** up, he was THEIR choice, and they backed their choice. Shame soopa Mike didn't back his own appointment in the same way ?

 

Oops, I forgot. You agreed with soopa mike that we shouldn't spend ie waste, any money, didn't you.

 

 

 

You mean to say you cant support a decision even though you disagree with it? Thats eseentially what you're saying, I didnt agree with the decision to sack SBR but i supported the decision becasue as a fan thats what i do. I disagreed with the appointments of Roeder, Souness and even remember arguing with you amongst others about the appointment of Allardyce but at the end of the day i supported each and every appointment.

 

Your're right, i have no intention of trying to prove that Shepherd et al decidied to purposely appoint a bad manager, all i can do is highlight the dmetrimental affect it had on the club, which is what im doing. Someone has to be accountable for the decision to appointmnet a bad manager.

 

 

 

so you don't see that a numpty who says something like "souness is doing the right thing getting rid of the cancer like Alex ferguson did", or "mike ashley is doing the right thing by appointing a DOF (to undermine the manager)" and agreeing with these decisions, is different to saying you think it is a mistake but you hope it works out because you support the club ?

 

Of course you have the hindsight queens like mandiarse who has agreed with at least 3 of the last boards appointments on this very message board (and probably 4 but he's too modest to admit it), and their actions while they were the manager, but now denies it

 

 

 

Actually i do see your point, if they supported the decsion and agreed with the decision then they should be in no posiiton to cirticise that decision, thats a fair point, but thats a personal thing and nothing to do with the big issue.

 

For what its worth i agree with the DOF sysytem, it has its merits.

 

Without of shadow of doubt it does we just had the wrong people in place.

 

Or did we have the wrong manager in place?

 

You should never have a manager when you have DOF a coach is all you need. But I don't think our system was like any other ever seen in football before so when people talk about DOF system are they talking about DOF system or our ED(F)/VP(PR)/TC-O thing we had going on.

[fredbob]

How many PL clubs run at a profit with no debt?

 

I'd be more curious to know which clubs run at a loss WITH debt.

 

Half the PL??

 

How many have owners who guarantee the debt?

 

Just saying you can't have your cake and eat it. Buying and selling players, hiring managers is a lottery. Look at the state Spurs are in and Liverpool will be in if they don't qual CL this season.

 

Thats the point, Liverpool will be in pretty much the same place as we are in now if they dont quaify. If that were to happen, they would go 2 ways, they will gamble like we did and pump more money in (if possilbe) or they'll sell players, id hazard a guess and say they'd sell.

 

What happened in 2004 to us, will be pretty much the saem situation that Liverpool would be in should they fail to qualify.

 

The decisoin to appoint Souness is the key to this whole arguement, the decision toback him heavily compunds that decison as it backfired spectacularly.

 

If a manager with merit was appointed and the gamble was the same, you'd still get your morons ciriticisng the appoinment and backing but the sensible ones will see the merits of the decison.

 

their current manager will certainly demand they buy, and their supporters would back him up

 

 

 

Providing he's hasnt been sacked for not qualifying...

 

he's been on the brink for the last 2 years for not winning the league, and I'm sure you'll take notice of that.

 

 

 

I dont think him not winning the league has anything to do with him "being on the brink", you're probably right about the fans wanting them to gamble - still wouldnt make the decision a correct one.

 

What do you think the fans would do if they sacked Rafa for failing to qualifiy then replaced him with Souness?

 

I haven't got a clue, maybe they will try replacing him with Roy Evans ?

 

 

 

You havent got a clue? I think you do but you dont want to admit it sonny, jimbob.

 

Well, yes, but the real question is if they will suffer the disgrace of "going backwards", or if they have a divine right to stay where they are forever. Do you think any scousers would then trace their demise down to signing Torres, Keane, Kuyt  and Masherano, and say it shouldn't have been done ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I dont see anyone saying the demise was down to signing Robert, Bellamy or Shearer, I see the majority of the people saying it was down to appointing Souness, backing him with so much money compunded that decision.

 

you can't criticise the decision, and the buys and sales he made, when you agreed with it all and backed it all right up the end. Not saying you did, I don't know if you did or not [did you say the other day that you did ?] but plenty of people DID, such as mandiarse for one.

 

The bigger picture being that they didn't purposely appoint a manager they knew would f*** up, he was THEIR choice, and they backed their choice. Shame soopa Mike didn't back his own appointment in the same way ?

 

Oops, I forgot. You agreed with soopa mike that we shouldn't spend ie waste, any money, didn't you.

 

 

 

You mean to say you cant support a decision even though you disagree with it? Thats eseentially what you're saying, I didnt agree with the decision to sack SBR but i supported the decision becasue as a fan thats what i do. I disagreed with the appointments of Roeder, Souness and even remember arguing with you amongst others about the appointment of Allardyce but at the end of the day i supported each and every appointment.

 

Your're right, i have no intention of trying to prove that Shepherd et al decidied to purposely appoint a bad manager, all i can do is highlight the dmetrimental affect it had on the club, which is what im doing. Someone has to be accountable for the decision to appointmnet a bad manager.

 

 

 

so you don't see that a numpty who says something like "souness is doing the right thing getting rid of the cancer like Alex ferguson did", or "mike ashley is doing the right thing by appointing a DOF (to undermine the manager)" and agreeing with these decisions, is different to saying you think it is a mistake but you hope it works out because you support the club ?

 

Of course you have the hindsight queens like mandiarse who has agreed with at least 3 of the last boards appointments on this very message board (and probably 4 but he's too modest to admit it), and their actions while they were the manager, but now denies it

 

 

 

Actually i do see your point, if they supported the decsion and agreed with the decision then they should be in no posiiton to cirticise that decision, thats a fair point, but thats a personal thing and nothing to do with the big issue.

 

For what its worth i agree with the DOF sysytem, it has its merits.

 

Without of shadow of doubt it does we just had the wrong people in place.

 

Or did we have the wrong manager in place?

 

You should never have a manager when you have DOF a coach is all you need. But I don't think our system was like any other ever seen in football before so when people talk about DOF system are they talking about DOF system or our ED(F)/VP(PR)/TC-O thing we had going on.

 

Dont Wise et al effectively do the DOF role? You're right about not having a "manager" but then a coach shouldnt have power to say who he does and doesnt want, his role should speicifaclly be coaching which is where i think its required a higher level of cooperation between the "DOF" and the "manager" so that they could corodinate signings for the team.

[NE5]

So where would it come from?

 

where has the money from all the other clubs came from ie apart from Chelsea and Man City ?

 

My earlier question/point was exactly the same question. The point others are making seems to be that they would be happy to stop competing and support a solvent club that spends years not attempting to make a challenge ? And my view of that is personally, I wouldn't want that because I've seen it, and the real effects of it, and also those that think they want it, wouldn't like it at all if they got it, just like now they don't like Ashley now the automatic improvement they expected with "any" new owner hasn't happened(although getting them to admit it is like pulling teeth)

 

 

 

Completely ignored my question and yet again put a set of words in mine and others' mouths.

 

Good stuff, cheers.

 

no I haven't, if you read it properly

 

 

[NE5]

How many PL clubs run at a profit with no debt?

 

I'd be more curious to know which clubs run at a loss WITH debt.

 

Half the PL??

 

How many have owners who guarantee the debt?

 

Just saying you can't have your cake and eat it. Buying and selling players, hiring managers is a lottery. Look at the state Spurs are in and Liverpool will be in if they don't qual CL this season.

 

Thats the point, Liverpool will be in pretty much the same place as we are in now if they dont quaify. If that were to happen, they would go 2 ways, they will gamble like we did and pump more money in (if possilbe) or they'll sell players, id hazard a guess and say they'd sell.

 

What happened in 2004 to us, will be pretty much the saem situation that Liverpool would be in should they fail to qualify.

 

The decisoin to appoint Souness is the key to this whole arguement, the decision toback him heavily compunds that decison as it backfired spectacularly.

 

If a manager with merit was appointed and the gamble was the same, you'd still get your morons ciriticisng the appoinment and backing but the sensible ones will see the merits of the decison.

 

their current manager will certainly demand they buy, and their supporters would back him up

 

 

 

Providing he's hasnt been sacked for not qualifying...

 

he's been on the brink for the last 2 years for not winning the league, and I'm sure you'll take notice of that.

 

 

 

I dont think him not winning the league has anything to do with him "being on the brink", you're probably right about the fans wanting them to gamble - still wouldnt make the decision a correct one.

 

What do you think the fans would do if they sacked Rafa for failing to qualifiy then replaced him with Souness?

 

I haven't got a clue, maybe they will try replacing him with Roy Evans ?

 

 

 

You havent got a clue? I think you do but you dont want to admit it sonny, jimbob.

 

Well, yes, but the real question is if they will suffer the disgrace of "going backwards", or if they have a divine right to stay where they are forever. Do you think any scousers would then trace their demise down to signing Torres, Keane, Kuyt  and Masherano, and say it shouldn't have been done ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I dont see anyone saying the demise was down to signing Robert, Bellamy or Shearer, I see the majority of the people saying it was down to appointing Souness, backing him with so much money compunded that decision.

 

you can't criticise the decision, and the buys and sales he made, when you agreed with it all and backed it all right up the end. Not saying you did, I don't know if you did or not [did you say the other day that you did ?] but plenty of people DID, such as mandiarse for one.

 

The bigger picture being that they didn't purposely appoint a manager they knew would fuck up, he was THEIR choice, and they backed their choice. Shame soopa Mike didn't back his own appointment in the same way ?

 

Oops, I forgot. You agreed with soopa mike that we shouldn't spend ie waste, any money, didn't you.

 

 

 

You mean to say you cant support a decision even though you disagree with it? Thats eseentially what you're saying, I didnt agree with the decision to sack SBR but i supported the decision becasue as a fan thats what i do. I disagreed with the appointments of Roeder, Souness and even remember arguing with you amongst others about the appointment of Allardyce but at the end of the day i supported each and every appointment.

 

Your're right, i have no intention of trying to prove that Shepherd et al decidied to purposely appoint a bad manager, all i can do is highlight the dmetrimental affect it had on the club, which is what im doing. Someone has to be accountable for the decision to appointmnet a bad manager.

 

 

 

so you don't see that a numpty who says something like "souness is doing the right thing getting rid of the cancer like Alex ferguson did", or "mike ashley is doing the right thing by appointing a DOF (to undermine the manager)" and agreeing with these decisions, is different to saying you think it is a mistake but you hope it works out because you support the club ?

 

Of course you have the hindsight queens like mandiarse who has agreed with at least 3 of the last boards appointments on this very message board (and probably 4 but he's too modest to admit it), and their actions while they were the manager, but now denies it

 

 

 

Actually i do see your point, if they supported the decsion and agreed with the decision then they should be in no posiiton to cirticise that decision, thats a fair point, but thats a personal thing and nothing to do with the big issue.

 

For what its worth i agree with the DOF sysytem, it has its merits.

 

 

sorry to say that I don't, in fact I think its probably the biggest pile of bollocks ever, and always did. Question for you is why have Arsene Wenger said he wouldn't entertain and Alex Ferguson certainly not entertain the idea of telling him who to buy and sell

 

A slightly different scenario, is does anybody on here, think that Dennis Wise is effectively our manager, if he is the person running the judgement in the transfer market ?

 

I'm sure the Ashley backers, all the way to relegation and insisting we are better off under soopa mike, will say this isnt the case, when it clearly appears to be.

 

Good businessman, this mike Ashley. Still, we're all in the business as football supporters of supporting a club that makes a profit. It might even win goal of the month if we are lucky 

 

 

[fredbob]

How many PL clubs run at a profit with no debt?

 

I'd be more curious to know which clubs run at a loss WITH debt.

 

Half the PL??

 

How many have owners who guarantee the debt?

 

Just saying you can't have your cake and eat it. Buying and selling players, hiring managers is a lottery. Look at the state Spurs are in and Liverpool will be in if they don't qual CL this season.

 

Thats the point, Liverpool will be in pretty much the same place as we are in now if they dont quaify. If that were to happen, they would go 2 ways, they will gamble like we did and pump more money in (if possilbe) or they'll sell players, id hazard a guess and say they'd sell.

 

What happened in 2004 to us, will be pretty much the saem situation that Liverpool would be in should they fail to qualify.

 

The decisoin to appoint Souness is the key to this whole arguement, the decision toback him heavily compunds that decison as it backfired spectacularly.

 

If a manager with merit was appointed and the gamble was the same, you'd still get your morons ciriticisng the appoinment and backing but the sensible ones will see the merits of the decison.

 

their current manager will certainly demand they buy, and their supporters would back him up

 

 

 

Providing he's hasnt been sacked for not qualifying...

 

he's been on the brink for the last 2 years for not winning the league, and I'm sure you'll take notice of that.

 

 

 

I dont think him not winning the league has anything to do with him "being on the brink", you're probably right about the fans wanting them to gamble - still wouldnt make the decision a correct one.

 

What do you think the fans would do if they sacked Rafa for failing to qualifiy then replaced him with Souness?

 

I haven't got a clue, maybe they will try replacing him with Roy Evans ?

 

 

 

You havent got a clue? I think you do but you dont want to admit it sonny, jimbob.

 

Well, yes, but the real question is if they will suffer the disgrace of "going backwards", or if they have a divine right to stay where they are forever. Do you think any scousers would then trace their demise down to signing Torres, Keane, Kuyt  and Masherano, and say it shouldn't have been done ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I dont see anyone saying the demise was down to signing Robert, Bellamy or Shearer, I see the majority of the people saying it was down to appointing Souness, backing him with so much money compunded that decision.

 

you can't criticise the decision, and the buys and sales he made, when you agreed with it all and backed it all right up the end. Not saying you did, I don't know if you did or not [did you say the other day that you did ?] but plenty of people DID, such as mandiarse for one.

 

The bigger picture being that they didn't purposely appoint a manager they knew would fuck up, he was THEIR choice, and they backed their choice. Shame soopa Mike didn't back his own appointment in the same way ?

 

Oops, I forgot. You agreed with soopa mike that we shouldn't spend ie waste, any money, didn't you.

 

 

 

You mean to say you cant support a decision even though you disagree with it? Thats eseentially what you're saying, I didnt agree with the decision to sack SBR but i supported the decision becasue as a fan thats what i do. I disagreed with the appointments of Roeder, Souness and even remember arguing with you amongst others about the appointment of Allardyce but at the end of the day i supported each and every appointment.

 

Your're right, i have no intention of trying to prove that Shepherd et al decidied to purposely appoint a bad manager, all i can do is highlight the dmetrimental affect it had on the club, which is what im doing. Someone has to be accountable for the decision to appointmnet a bad manager.

 

 

 

so you don't see that a numpty who says something like "souness is doing the right thing getting rid of the cancer like Alex ferguson did", or "mike ashley is doing the right thing by appointing a DOF (to undermine the manager)" and agreeing with these decisions, is different to saying you think it is a mistake but you hope it works out because you support the club ?

 

Of course you have the hindsight queens like mandiarse who has agreed with at least 3 of the last boards appointments on this very message board (and probably 4 but he's too modest to admit it), and their actions while they were the manager, but now denies it

 

 

 

Actually i do see your point, if they supported the decsion and agreed with the decision then they should be in no posiiton to cirticise that decision, thats a fair point, but thats a personal thing and nothing to do with the big issue.

 

For what its worth i agree with the DOF sysytem, it has its merits.

 

 

sorry to say that I don't, in fact I think its probably the biggest pile of bollocks ever, and always did. Question for you is why have Arsene Wenger said he wouldn't entertain and Alex Ferguson certainly not entertain the idea of telling him who to buy and sell

 

A slightly different scenario, is does anybody on here, think that Dennis Wise is effectively our manager, if he is the person running the judgement in the transfer market ?

 

I'm sure the Ashley backers, all the way to relegation and insisting we are better off under soopa mike, will say this isnt the case, when it clearly appears to be.

 

Good businessman, this mike Ashley. Still, we're all in the business as football supporters of supporting a club that makes a profit. It might even win goal of the month if we are lucky 

 

 

 

Your first question opens up a whole spectrum of issues, for example - is it fair to compare Fergie and Wenger with Keegan? I could be wrong but coaches of some of the major clubs in Europe hae little say on transfers, do there opinions count? Wenger and Fergie have built there huge reputations without the system, they're perfectly entteled to have opposing opnions, antoher issue which is massively contentious is the suggestion that Keegan had no say on the transfers full stop, i think theres enough evidence to suggest he did have full say, an argument for another day perhaps. The other things you r are discouting is the fact that the "old school" system works best with the best candidtates, if you dont have the best candidates it wont work well. 

 

Antoher thing is if a club gets relagated using the "old school" system, is that down to the system like it would be if we were to go down?