Shepherd Has His Say (Again)

[NE5]

did the club back then have assets to borrow against ?

 

what happens when you have borrowed against everything and you want to keep lending ?

 

I don't know tbh. Which assets have we lost since then?

 

Regardless, while financial restraints due to the current state of the financial world may have stopped Shepherd from investing as he may have wanted (or he may indeed have decided that it WAS time to cut back), that would have been a temporary cessation of ambition due to necessity. This is not the case with Ashley. He could pursue a more ambitious course for the club now, but he chooses not to. I think we can see that this season it would have been quite easy to rise above the pack and take a UEFA cup spot. More cover, a few good midfielders, and a decent manager is all it would have taken to give us a good fighting chance of that. Had it failed, Ashley would have had to add a bit more on to his asking price for the club. Had it succeeded, we would be getting full houses this year, and the subsequent year's increased gate & TV revenue would have paid for it easily (considering transfer fees are staged). (The club would also have been a much more attractive proposition to sell Mike.) Instead we are in the greatest danger of relegation we have been in since we got into the Premiership. The current situation may have been a necessity for Shepherd, but it is a choice for Ashley. That's the significant difference between the ideologies of running the club of the two for me, and why I think it is highly unlikely that we will ever be anything more than a mid table team at best under Ashley no matter how long he owns the club.

 

I'm not sure if the "debt" seems top be clouding the analysis of the current situation for a lot of people. If Ashley had bought a debt free club for £240m would people have the same opinion on his lack of spending on the squad?

 

well said again mate. So easy, yet so difficult for some to comprehend.

 

 

[Mick]

 

but you backed Souness spending spree, and his sales, on this very message board and said it would succeed

 

Ozzie is a right bastard for supporting the appointment of Souness, the bloke who appointed him is great.

[OzzieMandias]

 

but you backed Souness spending spree, and his sales, on this very message board and said it would succeed

 

Ozzie is a right bastard for supporting the appointment of Souness, the bloke who appointed him is great.

 

And anyway I didn't support the appointment of Souness.

 

That must make Shepherd a cunt.

[Mick]

 

 

And anyway I didn't support the appointment of Souness.

 

That must make Shepherd a c***.

 

 

It was your fault, stop trying to get out of it.

[NE5]

 

but you backed Souness spending spree, and his sales, on this very message board and said it would succeed

 

Ozzie is a right bastard for supporting the appointment of Souness, the bloke who appointed him is great.

 

I don't know if he's a right bastard or not, I've never met him and I dont' care anyway, but he's a hypocrite if he continues to slate managerial appointments that he said on here at the time were doing the right things and would succeed, and a liar if he continues to pretend he didn't.

 

But I'm not arsed. He's just like you, knows nothing and has mixed up values borne out of a personality driven agenda, but thats your problem not mine. Has soopa mike "embarrassed" you yet, you did want rid of the fat bastard for "embarrassing " you didn't you ? I mean, it can't have been football reasons, seeing as we qualfied for europe more than any other club bar 4 to the envy of 87 other clubs, twice as often in 16 years as in the previous 35, and filled an expanded capacity stadium with the 2nd biggest crowds in the country who were attracted back to the club by the very actions and ambition of the board you now slate for "embarrassing" you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[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.

 

if you rely on very basic reasoning, if however you see the benefit of evaluting evidence you can criticise absolutely anything at all. i've already said this but what the hell....shepherd agreed with his decision didnt he? does that mean that he cant now be self critical as that would go against NE5's golden rule?

 

 

 

Of course he can be self critical, becaue he'd be admitting the mistake in his judgment, i think what NE5 is alluding to is the fact that alot of people arent admitting their mistakes in their initial judgments and making the cirticsisms themselves as though they never agreed with the judgement in the first place.

 

If you agreed with someones decision whole heartedly and that decision backfired, is it fair to cirticise the person who made that decision without admitting your own shortcomings in the situaiotn? Seems pretty hypocrticial to me.

[Guest SpinTheBlackCircle]

Do you honestly think Shepherd was going to get us back in the CL?

 

 

Do you honestly think adopting Ashley's methods (hiring an inexperienced DoF over the manager, net £0 transfers, allowing the star striker's contract to run down to get him off the wages, trying to sell the club, bringing in a manager unable to find a job anywhere else) back in 2001 would have got us into the CL?

 

Is hindsight only ok to use when it's about Ashley then?

 

Hindsight is used when you agree (or disagree) with actions at the time but subsequent events prove them to be wrong (or correct). In this case I agreed with the decision to push forward then and it proved successful, so it's not using hindsight on my part. Besides, Ozzie is the hindsight king. He'll love it.

 

Remember the financial and on field situation at the time:

• The debt (£66m) was larger than the turnover (£55m) which relative to turnover is more than the "debt" now
  
• The club was making loses (£15.5 in 2000, £8.9m in 2001) which relative to turnover are equivalent to the loses now
  
• The club had finished 13, 13, 11, 11 in the previous years which is worse than our last 4 years.
  

 

As I asked in another thread, should we have

 

• Cut back on signings and not brought in Bellamy & Robert
  
• Sold the likes of Dyer for a good profit
  
• Let injury prone Shearer's contract run down so he could leave on a free and we could get his high wages off the bill (after all, we had a ready made replacement coming through from the youth team).
  
• Got someone like Vinnie Jones in to buy and sell players over Robson's head.
  
• If it pissed off Robson and he left, should we have replaced him with someone like Dave Basset.
  

 

Can I assume that the people commending Ashley for his prudence and vision for the club now would agree that we should have taken a similar approach back in 2001?

 

Ozzie asked if Shepherd was going to get us back in the CL. Well in a similar position back in 2001, by being speculative, we DID get back into the CL. At the moment I can only see Ashley's way of handling the situation taking the club in one direction, and that's down.

 

simply can't argue with any of that, unless you have your head buried in the sand and blindly still support Ashleys direction for the club.

 

 

 

Spot On

[DJ_NUFC]

Do you honestly think Shepherd was going to get us back in the CL?

 

 

Do you honestly think adopting Ashley's methods (hiring an inexperienced DoF over the manager, net £0 transfers, allowing the star striker's contract to run down to get him off the wages, trying to sell the club, bringing in a manager unable to find a job anywhere else) back in 2001 would have got us into the CL?

 

Is hindsight only ok to use when it's about Ashley then?

 

Hindsight is used when you agree (or disagree) with actions at the time but subsequent events prove them to be wrong (or correct). In this case I agreed with the decision to push forward then and it proved successful, so it's not using hindsight on my part. Besides, Ozzie is the hindsight king. He'll love it.

 

Remember the financial and on field situation at the time:

• The debt (£66m) was larger than the turnover (£55m) which relative to turnover is more than the "debt" now
  
• The club was making loses (£15.5 in 2000, £8.9m in 2001) which relative to turnover are equivalent to the loses now
  
• The club had finished 13, 13, 11, 11 in the previous years which is worse than our last 4 years.
  

 

As I asked in another thread, should we have

 

• Cut back on signings and not brought in Bellamy & Robert
  
• Sold the likes of Dyer for a good profit
  
• Let injury prone Shearer's contract run down so he could leave on a free and we could get his high wages off the bill (after all, we had a ready made replacement coming through from the youth team).
  
• Got someone like Vinnie Jones in to buy and sell players over Robson's head.
  
• If it pissed off Robson and he left, should we have replaced him with someone like Dave Basset.
  

 

Can I assume that the people commending Ashley for his prudence and vision for the club now would agree that we should have taken a similar approach back in 2001?

 

Ozzie asked if Shepherd was going to get us back in the CL. Well in a similar position back in 2001, by being speculative, we DID get back into the CL. At the moment I can only see Ashley's way of handling the situation taking the club in one direction, and that's down.

 

 

Although, I might add, Shepherd's continuation of that same 'borrow and spend' policy was never going to last forever and seriously needed to be curbed before we went bankrupt.

 

But yes, Ashley needs to get into what is known as 'creative money management,' where he begins to use his business acumen to move us forward rather than simply cut costs, strip assets and wait for the tide to turn in the hope the somehow everything would be rosy if the books are balanced. We'd probably have destructed on the field by then.

 

Surely there's a way to both balance the books (albeit slowly over a period of time) whilst also investing in the first team?

[fredbob]

Do you honestly think Shepherd was going to get us back in the CL?

 

 

Do you honestly think adopting Ashley's methods (hiring an inexperienced DoF over the manager, net £0 transfers, allowing the star striker's contract to run down to get him off the wages, trying to sell the club, bringing in a manager unable to find a job anywhere else) back in 2001 would have got us into the CL?

 

Is hindsight only ok to use when it's about Ashley then?

 

Hindsight is used when you agree (or disagree) with actions at the time but subsequent events prove them to be wrong (or correct). In this case I agreed with the decision to push forward then and it proved successful, so it's not using hindsight on my part. Besides, Ozzie is the hindsight king. He'll love it.

 

Remember the financial and on field situation at the time:

• The debt (£66m) was larger than the turnover (£55m) which relative to turnover is more than the "debt" now
  
• The club was making loses (£15.5 in 2000, £8.9m in 2001) which relative to turnover are equivalent to the loses now
  
• The club had finished 13, 13, 11, 11 in the previous years which is worse than our last 4 years.
  

 

As I asked in another thread, should we have

 

• Cut back on signings and not brought in Bellamy & Robert
  
• Sold the likes of Dyer for a good profit
  
• Let injury prone Shearer's contract run down so he could leave on a free and we could get his high wages off the bill (after all, we had a ready made replacement coming through from the youth team).
  
• Got someone like Vinnie Jones in to buy and sell players over Robson's head.
  
• If it pissed off Robson and he left, should we have replaced him with someone like Dave Basset.
  

 

Can I assume that the people commending Ashley for his prudence and vision for the club now would agree that we should have taken a similar approach back in 2001?

 

Ozzie asked if Shepherd was going to get us back in the CL. Well in a similar position back in 2001, by being speculative, we DID get back into the CL. At the moment I can only see Ashley's way of handling the situation taking the club in one direction, and that's down.

 

The difference between then and now is that the club had a guaranteed rise in income coming it's way in the future.

 

You mention the loss from the accounts in 2000 but the club was paying for a stadium that hadn't generated any extra money yet as the 1999/2000 season SJP was still at 36,000, they knew the money brought in through the gates would rise the following season so it wasn't a problem.

 

Same goes for the year after when a new Sky deal was announced in the summer of 2001 rising from £670m to £1.1b which meant another guaranteed rise in our income, you can afford to go out and spend when you know you've got money coming your way like most clubs did in the Summer of 2007 because of the guaranteed money from the new tv deal.

 

There is no guaranteed boost in income coming our way now, the extra revenue from the tv deal that we were hoping would allow us to go out and bring more players in is already gone before we see it because of bad management of our finances by Shepherd and until we can turn that around then we will continue to be skint.

 

Also worth mentioning that the club was in a position to borrow. Not the same now, it also wasnt paying holloywood wages at the time so hadmore manoevourablilty in the transfer market.

[oldtype]

"Borrow and Spend" ended as a potentially effective policy after the complete fiasco that was the Souness era, and Shepherd's spending in his last year reflect's this. We were already far, far beyond the point where we could borrow some more and hope we get ourselves into Europe.

 

In the state the club was when he came in, Ashley's policy really represented the only sane thing he could do.

[OzzieMandias]

Do you honestly think Shepherd was going to get us back in the CL?

 

 

Do you honestly think adopting Ashley's methods (hiring an inexperienced DoF over the manager, net £0 transfers, allowing the star striker's contract to run down to get him off the wages, trying to sell the club, bringing in a manager unable to find a job anywhere else) back in 2001 would have got us into the CL?

 

Is hindsight only ok to use when it's about Ashley then?

 

Hindsight is used when you agree (or disagree) with actions at the time but subsequent events prove them to be wrong (or correct). In this case I agreed with the decision to push forward then and it proved successful, so it's not using hindsight on my part. Besides, Ozzie is the hindsight king. He'll love it.

 

Remember the financial and on field situation at the time:

• The debt (£66m) was larger than the turnover (£55m) which relative to turnover is more than the "debt" now
  
• The club was making loses (£15.5 in 2000, £8.9m in 2001) which relative to turnover are equivalent to the loses now
  
• The club had finished 13, 13, 11, 11 in the previous years which is worse than our last 4 years.
  

 

As I asked in another thread, should we have

 

• Cut back on signings and not brought in Bellamy & Robert
  
• Sold the likes of Dyer for a good profit
  
• Let injury prone Shearer's contract run down so he could leave on a free and we could get his high wages off the bill (after all, we had a ready made replacement coming through from the youth team).
  
• Got someone like Vinnie Jones in to buy and sell players over Robson's head.
  
• If it pissed off Robson and he left, should we have replaced him with someone like Dave Basset.
  

 

Can I assume that the people commending Ashley for his prudence and vision for the club now would agree that we should have taken a similar approach back in 2001?

 

Ozzie asked if Shepherd was going to get us back in the CL. Well in a similar position back in 2001, by being speculative, we DID get back into the CL. At the moment I can only see Ashley's way of handling the situation taking the club in one direction, and that's down.

 

simply can't argue with any of that, unless you have your head buried in the sand and blindly still support Ashleys direction for the club.

 

 

 

Spot On

 

Aye, let's just ignore all the problems that developed after Robson.

[quayside]

Do you honestly think Shepherd was going to get us back in the CL?

 

 

Do you honestly think adopting Ashley's methods (hiring an inexperienced DoF over the manager, net £0 transfers, allowing the star striker's contract to run down to get him off the wages, trying to sell the club, bringing in a manager unable to find a job anywhere else) back in 2001 would have got us into the CL?

 

Is hindsight only ok to use when it's about Ashley then?

 

Hindsight is used when you agree (or disagree) with actions at the time but subsequent events prove them to be wrong (or correct). In this case I agreed with the decision to push forward then and it proved successful, so it's not using hindsight on my part. Besides, Ozzie is the hindsight king. He'll love it.

 

Remember the financial and on field situation at the time:

• The debt (£66m) was larger than the turnover (£55m) which relative to turnover is more than the "debt" now
  
• The club was making loses (£15.5 in 2000, £8.9m in 2001) which relative to turnover are equivalent to the loses now
  
• The club had finished 13, 13, 11, 11 in the previous years which is worse than our last 4 years.
  

 

As I asked in another thread, should we have

 

• Cut back on signings and not brought in Bellamy & Robert
  
• Sold the likes of Dyer for a good profit
  
• Let injury prone Shearer's contract run down so he could leave on a free and we could get his high wages off the bill (after all, we had a ready made replacement coming through from the youth team).
  
• Got someone like Vinnie Jones in to buy and sell players over Robson's head.
  
• If it pissed off Robson and he left, should we have replaced him with someone like Dave Basset.
  

 

Can I assume that the people commending Ashley for his prudence and vision for the club now would agree that we should have taken a similar approach back in 2001?

 

Ozzie asked if Shepherd was going to get us back in the CL. Well in a similar position back in 2001, by being speculative, we DID get back into the CL. At the moment I can only see Ashley's way of handling the situation taking the club in one direction, and that's down.

 

I can trace the 2000/2001 losses you quote from macbeth's website, but can't find reference to the turnover or debt of £66 million on there. I may have missed it. Did those figures come from another source? 

[OzzieMandias]

Could he be confusing the stadium debt with the rest of the mess?

[NE5]

 

but you backed Souness spending spree, and his sales, on this very message board and said it would succeed

 

Ozzie is a right bastard for supporting the appointment of Souness, the bloke who appointed him is great.

 

And anyway I didn't support the appointment of Souness.

 

That must make Shepherd a cunt.

 

well, your support of Souness was well documented, unfortunately on the old server, if it isn't true that you supported him right to the end, why not confirm that from the moment he kicked out Bellamy he was getting it wrong, as was the case.

Anyway, I found this.

 

http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,38118.msg765469.html#msg765469

 

And remember when UV and myself were asked to provide proof of anyone wanting "anyone but fred", which you denied, and UV found your comment "nothing to fear from a change at the top". Didn't you also comment lately on how sad you found the lads who walked around inside the ground with the banner ?

 

 

http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,31195.msg582620.html#msg582620

 

http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,31195.msg591099.html#msg591099

 

 

[Guest elbee909]

Fuck's sake, can't some people stop being cunts?  Ooh, you said this, tittle tattle fucking BOLLOCKS.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

I think had Freddy Shepherd remained chairman, Big Sam would have been more successful and eventually the club would have turned around at least on the pitch anyway (during the course of Big Sam's contract).

[Dave]

Fuck's sake, can't some people stop being cunts?  Ooh, you said this, tittle tattle fucking BOLLOCKS.

 

Good luck with that.

[Guest neesy111]

I think had Freddy Shepherd remained chairman, Big Sam would have been more successful and eventually the club would have turned around at least on the pitch anyway (during the course of Big Sam's contract).

 

he would of always had failed with that type of football at any decent sized club

[Shearergol]

 

but you backed Souness spending spree, and his sales, on this very message board and said it would succeed

 

Ozzie is a right bastard for supporting the appointment of Souness, the bloke who appointed him is great.

 

And anyway I didn't support the appointment of Souness.

 

That must make Shepherd a cunt.

 

well, your support of Souness was well documented, unfortunately on the old server, if it isn't true that you supported him right to the end, why not confirm that from the moment he kicked out Bellamy he was getting it wrong, as was the case.

Anyway, I found this.

 

http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,38118.msg765469.html#msg765469

 

And remember when UV and myself were asked to provide proof of anyone wanting "anyone but fred", which you denied, and UV found your comment "nothing to change from a change at the top". Didn't you also comment lately on how sad you found the lads who walked around inside the ground with the banner ?

 

 

http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,31195.msg582620.html#msg582620

 

http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,31195.msg591099.html#msg591099

 

 

 

Old server? Thought everything was brought across?

 

And anyway, he could just claim that someone edited his post....

[Baggio]

 

but you backed Souness spending spree, and his sales, on this very message board and said it would succeed

 

Ozzie is a right bastard for supporting the appointment of Souness, the bloke who appointed him is great.

 

And anyway I didn't support the appointment of Souness.

 

That must make Shepherd a cunt.

 

well, your support of Souness was well documented, unfortunately on the old server, if it isn't true that you supported him right to the end, why not confirm that from the moment he kicked out Bellamy he was getting it wrong, as was the case.

Anyway, I found this.

 

http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,38118.msg765469.html#msg765469

 

And remember when UV and myself were asked to provide proof of anyone wanting "anyone but fred", which you denied, and UV found your comment "nothing to change from a change at the top". Didn't you also comment lately on how sad you found the lads who walked around inside the ground with the banner ?

 

 

http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,31195.msg582620.html#msg582620

 

http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,31195.msg591099.html#msg591099

 

 

 

Old server? Thought everything was brought across?

 

And anyway, he could just claim that someone edited his post....

 

It's been explained to him a few times but he still doesn't understand what a server is.

[Mick]

 

Old server? Thought everything was brought across?

 

And anyway, he could just claim that someone edited his post....

 

[NE5]

I think had Freddy Shepherd remained chairman, Big Sam would have been more successful and eventually the club would have turned around at least on the pitch anyway (during the course of Big Sam's contract).

 

I think I agree with that and I think he will do a good job at Blackburn, for them, like Bolton.

 

 

[Shearergol]

I think had Freddy Shepherd remained chairman, Big Sam would have been more successful and eventually the club would have turned around at least on the pitch anyway (during the course of Big Sam's contract).

 

I think I agree with that and I think he will do a good job at Blackburn, for them, like Bolton.

 

 

 

You were pleased when we appointed him too. Do you think we should have kept him?

[NE5]

I think had Freddy Shepherd remained chairman, Big Sam would have been more successful and eventually the club would have turned around at least on the pitch anyway (during the course of Big Sam's contract).

 

I think I agree with that and I think he will do a good job at Blackburn, for them, like Bolton.

 

 

 

You were pleased when we appointed him too. Do you think we should have kept him?

 

Yes, I was pleased when we appointed Allardyce. Allardyce was getting it wrong, so you have to make a decision, and I agreed with the need to make the change or we could have gone down, pretty much like now in fact, pretty strange how despite changing ownership from the old shite board that anyone would do better than, we are now in the biggest danger we have ever been of returning to where the Halls and Shepherd found us, 2 managers later.  If you want hindsight based comments, mandiarse is your man (or girl).  Your point is ?

 

You also said that the chairman at Bolton was a good chairman for appointing allardyce, and better than fat fred too, didn't you ?

 

 

[Mick]

 

Yes, I was pleased when we appointed Allardyce. Allardyce was getting it wrong, so you have to make a decision, and I agreed with the need to make the change or we could have gone down, pretty much like now in fact, pretty strange how despite changing ownership from the old s**** board that anyone would do better than, we are now in the biggest danger we have ever been of returning to where the Halls and Shepherd found us, 2 managers later.  If you want hindsight based comments, mandiarse is your man (or girl).  Your point is ?

 

You also said that the chairman at Bolton was a good chairman for appointing allardyce, and better than fat fred too, didn't you ?

 

 

 

You really need to grow up.