Wise - On His Way Out?

[NE5]

I'd really like a timeline of how Ozzies single quote, paraphrased as " so long as the new owners were chasing success I don't see what's wrong with a change at the top", has morphed into "I don't care who the new owners are.  Anyone can do a better job than Shepherd."

 

Oh wait, this was a thread about Wise.  Was.

 

the quote is :

 

"any individual or group resourceful enough to raise the £100 million plus that would be needed today to take over the club is likely also to be intelligent and resourceful enough to make a better fist of it than the current board" - ozzie mandiarse 24th Oct 2006

 

So, the obvious answer is that they haven't ? Which, using mandiarse's remarkable gift of hindsight, would appear to be the case, wouldn't you agree ? Unless of course, he is still happy that the new regime is moving the club towards matching the european qualifications, capacity gates and therefore the long term revenue [at least] of the board he was slating, which is down to the appointment of Dennis Wise and other factors which come together as part of the running of the club  ?

Cheers.  I'd been unaware that quote was now the one under discussion. 

 

But actually yes, I have a major problem with your interpretation.

 

You've taken the last part of that sentence "... than the current board" and tried to apply it as a criticism of the entire tenure of the board.  When that quote was posted, Late October 2006, we were just in the middle of a 9 game winless streak, Roeder'd been found out as having completely lucked up that 7th place finish and there was still a lot of dissatisfaction floating around about the board, spending and Souness.  When Ozzie said that I think it's very, very clear he was talking about what they'd done recently and not what they'd done as a whole.

 

You are quite wrong. There was a lot of support for what Souness was doing, with mandiarse one of his main supporters.

 

I think his statement is very clear, as clear as is possible, meaning that he thought pretty much anybody would come in and do better.

Then the disagreement is the length of time to which he was speaking. 

 

You interpret it as "Do better than they've done since 1992", the entire rest of the world interprets it as "Do better since the sacking of SBR."

 

 

so the first 12 years of when they ran the club is being conveniently ignored here ?

 

I will remind you, that we finished 7th only 2 years ago, a position that was achieved only twice in over 30 years prior to the Halls and Shepherd taking over the club. And a position, which, under the present setup and owner, we will never match. In my opinion.

 

So what is your opinion of the setup of the club, including the appointment of Dennis Wise of which is incorporated, and the progress towards at least equalling the league positions, european qualifications, capacity crowds and therefore the revenue and interest in the club which their predecessors achieved ?

 

 

[Lotus]

I'd really like a timeline of how Ozzies single quote, paraphrased as " so long as the new owners were chasing success I don't see what's wrong with a change at the top", has morphed into "I don't care who the new owners are.  Anyone can do a better job than Shepherd."

 

Oh wait, this was a thread about Wise.  Was.

 

the quote is :

 

"any individual or group resourceful enough to raise the £100 million plus that would be needed today to take over the club is likely also to be intelligent and resourceful enough to make a better fist of it than the current board" - ozzie mandiarse 24th Oct 2006

 

So, the obvious answer is that they haven't ? Which, using mandiarse's remarkable gift of hindsight, would appear to be the case, wouldn't you agree ? Unless of course, he is still happy that the new regime is moving the club towards matching the european qualifications, capacity gates and therefore the long term revenue [at least] of the board he was slating, which is down to the appointment of Dennis Wise and other factors which come together as part of the running of the club  ?

Cheers.  I'd been unaware that quote was now the one under discussion. 

 

But actually yes, I have a major problem with your interpretation.

 

You've taken the last part of that sentence "... than the current board" and tried to apply it as a criticism of the entire tenure of the board.  When that quote was posted, Late October 2006, we were just in the middle of a 9 game winless streak, Roeder'd been found out as having completely lucked up that 7th place finish and there was still a lot of dissatisfaction floating around about the board, spending and Souness.  When Ozzie said that I think it's very, very clear he was talking about what they'd done recently and not what they'd done as a whole.

 

You are quite wrong. There was a lot of support for what Souness was doing, with mandiarse one of his main supporters.

 

I think his statement is very clear, as clear as is possible, meaning that he thought pretty much anybody would come in and do better.

Then the disagreement is the length of time to which he was speaking. 

 

You interpret it as "Do better than they've done since 1992", the entire rest of the world interprets it as "Do better since the sacking of SBR."

 

 

so the first 12 years of when they ran the club is being conveniently ignored here ?

 

I will remind you, that we finished 7th only 2 years ago, a position that was achieved only twice in over 30 years prior to the Halls and Shepherd taking over the club. And a position, which, under the present setup and owner, we will never match. In my opinion.

 

So what is your opinion of the setup of the club, including the appointment of Dennis Wise of which is incorporated, and the progress towards at least equalling the league positions, european qualifications, capacity crowds and therefore the revenue and interest in the club which their predecessors achieved ?

 

 

 

Where would the money have come from if we were still in the Ownership of the Halls? How would we have funded our team rebuilding? Would you have expected the Halls to put the money up from their own pockets? If not, whose?

 

Genuinely curious btw.

[NE5]

I'd really like a timeline of how Ozzies single quote, paraphrased as " so long as the new owners were chasing success I don't see what's wrong with a change at the top", has morphed into "I don't care who the new owners are.  Anyone can do a better job than Shepherd."

 

Oh wait, this was a thread about Wise.  Was.

 

the quote is :

 

"any individual or group resourceful enough to raise the £100 million plus that would be needed today to take over the club is likely also to be intelligent and resourceful enough to make a better fist of it than the current board" - ozzie mandiarse 24th Oct 2006

 

So, the obvious answer is that they haven't ? Which, using mandiarse's remarkable gift of hindsight, would appear to be the case, wouldn't you agree ? Unless of course, he is still happy that the new regime is moving the club towards matching the european qualifications, capacity gates and therefore the long term revenue [at least] of the board he was slating, which is down to the appointment of Dennis Wise and other factors which come together as part of the running of the club  ?

Cheers.  I'd been unaware that quote was now the one under discussion. 

 

But actually yes, I have a major problem with your interpretation.

 

You've taken the last part of that sentence "... than the current board" and tried to apply it as a criticism of the entire tenure of the board.  When that quote was posted, Late October 2006, we were just in the middle of a 9 game winless streak, Roeder'd been found out as having completely lucked up that 7th place finish and there was still a lot of dissatisfaction floating around about the board, spending and Souness.  When Ozzie said that I think it's very, very clear he was talking about what they'd done recently and not what they'd done as a whole.

 

You are quite wrong. There was a lot of support for what Souness was doing, with mandiarse one of his main supporters.

 

I think his statement is very clear, as clear as is possible, meaning that he thought pretty much anybody would come in and do better.

Then the disagreement is the length of time to which he was speaking. 

 

You interpret it as "Do better than they've done since 1992", the entire rest of the world interprets it as "Do better since the sacking of SBR."

 

 

so the first 12 years of when they ran the club is being conveniently ignored here ?

 

I will remind you, that we finished 7th only 2 years ago, a position that was achieved only twice in over 30 years prior to the Halls and Shepherd taking over the club. And a position, which, under the present setup and owner, we will never match. In my opinion.

 

So what is your opinion of the setup of the club, including the appointment of Dennis Wise of which is incorporated, and the progress towards at least equalling the league positions, european qualifications, capacity crowds and therefore the revenue and interest in the club which their predecessors achieved ?

 

 

 

Where would the money have come from if we were still in the Ownership of the Halls? How would we have funded our team rebuilding? Would you have expected the Halls to put the money up from their own pockets? If not, whose?

 

Genuinely curious btw.

 

are you saying that Mike Ashley has personally funded new signings ?

 

As the 3rd biggest supported club in the country, I don't think its acceptable to be run like clubs such as Bolton, Birmingham etc. If you are going to start harping on about debts, then start with telling me how many successful clubs don't have debts.

 

 

[Mick]

 

are you saying that Mike Ashley has personally funded new signings ?

 

As the 3rd biggest supported club in the country, I don't think its acceptable to be run like clubs such as Bolton, Birmingham etc. If you are going to start harping on about debts, then start with telling me how many successful clubs don't have debts.

 

 

 

Ashley has personally kept the club in the black, he's paid for all of those golden years you brag about, and he's paid for that 52,000 stadium you now sit in.

[NE5]

 

are you saying that Mike Ashley has personally funded new signings ?

 

As the 3rd biggest supported club in the country, I don't think its acceptable to be run like clubs such as Bolton, Birmingham etc. If you are going to start harping on about debts, then start with telling me how many successful clubs don't have debts.

 

 

 

Ashley has personally kept the club in the black, he's paid for all of those golden years you brag about, and he's paid for that 52,000 stadium you now sit in.

 

see my sig

 

mackems.gif

[Mick]

 

see my sig

 

mackems.gif

 

I'll stand by what I''ve said, especially in the context in which they were made.

 

How do you feel about Ashley paying for the 52,000 stadium and the players that your mate brought to the club?

[Guest Micktoon]

Am I the only one who detects a certain irony in these idiots who constantly fulminate about "hindsight" (apparently unable to tell the difference from "history") constantly snouting around in the detritus of three-year-old discussions in an infantile search for ammunition to try and silence other posters?

 

Regardless of who the fuck is right or wrong, where's wisey gone in this thread.

 

By the way using words like fulminate(WTF does that mean) and detritus just makes you sound like a cunt (not saying you are like wouldn't know you from adam) Fucking fulmimate, have you ever?

[Guest fraser]

Am I the only one who detects a certain irony in these idiots who constantly fulminate about "hindsight" (apparently unable to tell the difference from "history") constantly snouting around in the detritus of three-year-old discussions in an infantile search for ammunition to try and silence other posters?

 

Regardless of who the f*** is right or wrong, where's wisey gone in this thread.

 

By the way using words like fulminate(WTF does that mean) and detritus just makes you sound like a c*** (not saying you are like wouldn't know you from adam) f***ing fulmimate, have you ever?

 

You've fulminated against the OzzieMandias comments. Although you may not have described it as such.

[OzzieMandias]

I'd really like a timeline of how Ozzies single quote, paraphrased as " so long as the new owners were chasing success I don't see what's wrong with a change at the top", has morphed into "I don't care who the new owners are.  Anyone can do a better job than Shepherd."

 

Oh wait, this was a thread about Wise.  Was.

 

the quote is :

 

"any individual or group resourceful enough to raise the £100 million plus that would be needed today to take over the club is likely also to be intelligent and resourceful enough to make a better fist of it than the current board" - ozzie mandiarse 24th Oct 2006

 

So, the obvious answer is that they haven't ? Which, using mandiarse's remarkable gift of hindsight, would appear to be the case, wouldn't you agree ? Unless of course, he is still happy that the new regime is moving the club towards matching the european qualifications, capacity gates and therefore the long term revenue [at least] of the board he was slating, which is down to the appointment of Dennis Wise and other factors which come together as part of the running of the club  ?

Cheers.  I'd been unaware that quote was now the one under discussion. 

 

But actually yes, I have a major problem with your interpretation.

 

You've taken the last part of that sentence "... than the current board" and tried to apply it as a criticism of the entire tenure of the board.  When that quote was posted, Late October 2006, we were just in the middle of a 9 game winless streak, Roeder'd been found out as having completely lucked up that 7th place finish and there was still a lot of dissatisfaction floating around about the board, spending and Souness.  When Ozzie said that I think it's very, very clear he was talking about what they'd done recently and not what they'd done as a whole.

 

You are quite wrong. There was a lot of support for what Souness was doing, with mandiarse one of his main supporters.

 

I think his statement is very clear, as clear as is possible, meaning that he thought pretty much anybody would come in and do better.

Then the disagreement is the length of time to which he was speaking. 

 

You interpret it as "Do better than they've done since 1992", the entire rest of the world interprets it as "Do better since the sacking of SBR."

 

 

so the first 12 years of when they ran the club is being conveniently ignored here ?

 

I will remind you, that we finished 7th only 2 years ago, a position that was achieved only twice in over 30 years prior to the Halls and Shepherd taking over the club. And a position, which, under the present setup and owner, we will never match. In my opinion.

 

So what is your opinion of the setup of the club, including the appointment of Dennis Wise of which is incorporated, and the progress towards at least equalling the league positions, european qualifications, capacity crowds and therefore the revenue and interest in the club which their predecessors achieved ?

 

 

 

Where would the money have come from if we were still in the Ownership of the Halls? How would we have funded our team rebuilding? Would you have expected the Halls to put the money up from their own pockets? If not, whose?

 

Genuinely curious btw.

 

The answer is that he hasn't got a fucking clue.

[Guest Micktoon]

I'd really like a timeline of how Ozzies single quote, paraphrased as " so long as the new owners were chasing success I don't see what's wrong with a change at the top", has morphed into "I don't care who the new owners are.  Anyone can do a better job than Shepherd."

 

Oh wait, this was a thread about Wise.  Was.

 

the quote is :

 

"any individual or group resourceful enough to raise the £100 million plus that would be needed today to take over the club is likely also to be intelligent and resourceful enough to make a better fist of it than the current board" - ozzie mandiarse 24th Oct 2006

 

So, the obvious answer is that they haven't ? Which, using mandiarse's remarkable gift of hindsight, would appear to be the case, wouldn't you agree ? Unless of course, he is still happy that the new regime is moving the club towards matching the european qualifications, capacity gates and therefore the long term revenue [at least] of the board he was slating, which is down to the appointment of Dennis Wise and other factors which come together as part of the running of the club  ?

Cheers.  I'd been unaware that quote was now the one under discussion. 

 

But actually yes, I have a major problem with your interpretation.

 

You've taken the last part of that sentence "... than the current board" and tried to apply it as a criticism of the entire tenure of the board.  When that quote was posted, Late October 2006, we were just in the middle of a 9 game winless streak, Roeder'd been found out as having completely lucked up that 7th place finish and there was still a lot of dissatisfaction floating around about the board, spending and Souness.  When Ozzie said that I think it's very, very clear he was talking about what they'd done recently and not what they'd done as a whole.

 

You are quite wrong. There was a lot of support for what Souness was doing, with mandiarse one of his main supporters.

 

I think his statement is very clear, as clear as is possible, meaning that he thought pretty much anybody would come in and do better.

Then the disagreement is the length of time to which he was speaking. 

 

You interpret it as "Do better than they've done since 1992", the entire rest of the world interprets it as "Do better since the sacking of SBR."

 

 

so the first 12 years of when they ran the club is being conveniently ignored here ?

 

I will remind you, that we finished 7th only 2 years ago, a position that was achieved only twice in over 30 years prior to the Halls and Shepherd taking over the club. And a position, which, under the present setup and owner, we will never match. In my opinion.

 

So what is your opinion of the setup of the club, including the appointment of Dennis Wise of which is incorporated, and the progress towards at least equalling the league positions, european qualifications, capacity crowds and therefore the revenue and interest in the club which their predecessors achieved ?

 

 

 

Where would the money have come from if we were still in the Ownership of the Halls? How would we have funded our team rebuilding? Would you have expected the Halls to put the money up from their own pockets? If not, whose?

 

Genuinely curious btw.

 

The answer is that he hasn't got a fucking clue.

 

Would that be a fulminating clue?

[NE5]

 

see my sig

 

mackems.gif

 

I'll stand by what I''ve said, especially in the context in which they were made.

 

How do you feel about Ashley paying for the 52,000 stadium and the players that your mate brought to the club?

 

are you now saying you wish all those champions league games and european qualifications had never happened ?

 

mackems.gif

 

priceless..........  mackems.gif

[NE5]

I'd really like a timeline of how Ozzies single quote, paraphrased as " so long as the new owners were chasing success I don't see what's wrong with a change at the top", has morphed into "I don't care who the new owners are.  Anyone can do a better job than Shepherd."

 

Oh wait, this was a thread about Wise.  Was.

 

the quote is :

 

"any individual or group resourceful enough to raise the £100 million plus that would be needed today to take over the club is likely also to be intelligent and resourceful enough to make a better fist of it than the current board" - ozzie mandiarse 24th Oct 2006

 

So, the obvious answer is that they haven't ? Which, using mandiarse's remarkable gift of hindsight, would appear to be the case, wouldn't you agree ? Unless of course, he is still happy that the new regime is moving the club towards matching the european qualifications, capacity gates and therefore the long term revenue [at least] of the board he was slating, which is down to the appointment of Dennis Wise and other factors which come together as part of the running of the club  ?

Cheers.  I'd been unaware that quote was now the one under discussion. 

 

But actually yes, I have a major problem with your interpretation.

 

You've taken the last part of that sentence "... than the current board" and tried to apply it as a criticism of the entire tenure of the board.  When that quote was posted, Late October 2006, we were just in the middle of a 9 game winless streak, Roeder'd been found out as having completely lucked up that 7th place finish and there was still a lot of dissatisfaction floating around about the board, spending and Souness.  When Ozzie said that I think it's very, very clear he was talking about what they'd done recently and not what they'd done as a whole.

 

You are quite wrong. There was a lot of support for what Souness was doing, with mandiarse one of his main supporters.

 

I think his statement is very clear, as clear as is possible, meaning that he thought pretty much anybody would come in and do better.

Then the disagreement is the length of time to which he was speaking. 

 

You interpret it as "Do better than they've done since 1992", the entire rest of the world interprets it as "Do better since the sacking of SBR."

 

 

so the first 12 years of when they ran the club is being conveniently ignored here ?

 

I will remind you, that we finished 7th only 2 years ago, a position that was achieved only twice in over 30 years prior to the Halls and Shepherd taking over the club. And a position, which, under the present setup and owner, we will never match. In my opinion.

 

So what is your opinion of the setup of the club, including the appointment of Dennis Wise of which is incorporated, and the progress towards at least equalling the league positions, european qualifications, capacity crowds and therefore the revenue and interest in the club which their predecessors achieved ?

 

 

 

Where would the money have come from if we were still in the Ownership of the Halls? How would we have funded our team rebuilding? Would you have expected the Halls to put the money up from their own pockets? If not, whose?

 

Genuinely curious btw.

 

The answer is that he hasn't got a fucking clue.

 

so speaks the hindsight queen, who hasn't got a clue about anything until after the event  mackems.gif

[NE5]

Am I the only one who detects a certain irony in these idiots who constantly fulminate about "hindsight" (apparently unable to tell the difference from "history") constantly snouting around in the detritus of three-year-old discussions in an infantile search for ammunition to try and silence other posters?

 

Regardless of who the fuck is right or wrong, where's wisey gone in this thread.

 

By the way using words like fulminate(WTF does that mean) and detritus just makes you sound like a cunt (not saying you are like wouldn't know you from adam) Fucking fulmimate, have you ever?

 

[thomas]

I'd really like a timeline of how Ozzies single quote, paraphrased as " so long as the new owners were chasing success I don't see what's wrong with a change at the top", has morphed into "I don't care who the new owners are.  Anyone can do a better job than Shepherd."

 

Oh wait, this was a thread about Wise.  Was.

 

the quote is :

 

"any individual or group resourceful enough to raise the £100 million plus that would be needed today to take over the club is likely also to be intelligent and resourceful enough to make a better fist of it than the current board" - ozzie mandiarse 24th Oct 2006

 

So, the obvious answer is that they haven't ? Which, using mandiarse's remarkable gift of hindsight, would appear to be the case, wouldn't you agree ? Unless of course, he is still happy that the new regime is moving the club towards matching the european qualifications, capacity gates and therefore the long term revenue [at least] of the board he was slating, which is down to the appointment of Dennis Wise and other factors which come together as part of the running of the club  ?

Cheers.  I'd been unaware that quote was now the one under discussion. 

 

But actually yes, I have a major problem with your interpretation.

 

You've taken the last part of that sentence "... than the current board" and tried to apply it as a criticism of the entire tenure of the board.  When that quote was posted, Late October 2006, we were just in the middle of a 9 game winless streak, Roeder'd been found out as having completely lucked up that 7th place finish and there was still a lot of dissatisfaction floating around about the board, spending and Souness.  When Ozzie said that I think it's very, very clear he was talking about what they'd done recently and not what they'd done as a whole.

 

You are quite wrong. There was a lot of support for what Souness was doing, with mandiarse one of his main supporters.

 

I think his statement is very clear, as clear as is possible, meaning that he thought pretty much anybody would come in and do better.

Then the disagreement is the length of time to which he was speaking. 

 

You interpret it as "Do better than they've done since 1992", the entire rest of the world interprets it as "Do better since the sacking of SBR."

 

 

so the first 12 years of when they ran the club is being conveniently ignored here ?

It's not about convenience, it's about relevance and confidence.  Those 12 years prior would have come into consideration if someone was thinking "well, we're certainly not moving in the right direction anymore.  But they've gotten us there before" ... that would be the relevant part ... the confidence part would be the natural followup to that sentence in " but do they look like getting us there again?" and the only sane, lucid answer one can provide would be "no".  So in this context, those prior 12 weren't applicable. 

 

I fail to see how you're not grasping this very simple, very easy concept.  When someone in any walk of life, who has prior to now produced excellent results, loses the plot badly, you HAVE to ask "do they look like turning it around".  You HAVE to. Because it doesn't matter at that point how well they did in the past if they only look like they're dragging you down in the future.  At some point, yes, you have to say "OK.  What you did in the past was excellent but you can no longer move us forward."

 

I, and many others on here, were of the opinion that no, Shepherd et al could NOT. 

 

I will remind you, that we finished 7th only 2 years ago, a position that was achieved only twice in over 30 years prior to the Halls and Shepherd taking over the club. And a position, which, under the present setup and owner, we will never match. In my opinion.

I will remind you it was with Glenn Roeder at the helm, a man who's managed to get pretty much every other team he's managed relegated.  Does that mean his 7th place finish was the aberration or are all those relegations the odd ones out?  It was a fluke, as his prior and post history bears out.  Call it St. Glenn's Miracle Season, call it a vindication for Freddy Shepherd, call it whatever you want.  I and the majority of others will call it as it rightly is: a fluke.   

 

By the same token, if JFK reeled off 14 straight wins and secured 7th, a position that was achieved only 8 times in over 40 years prior to Ashley taking over, I would not hail it as a success of Ashley's system or of JFK as a coach.

 

 

So what is your opinion of the setup of the club, including the appointment of Dennis Wise of which is incorporated, and the progress towards at least equalling the league positions, european qualifications, capacity crowds and therefore the revenue and interest in the club which their predecessors achieved ?

I think it was poorly planned, poorly executed and that Keegan, Llambias and Wise were all bad appointments. I think if MA wants to stick with a DOF/Academy/Manager-As-Coach idea it would be worth his time and money to go searching in continental Europe for such qualified individuals than within a country that has historically rejected such measures. 

 

I think such a setup could work in England but that it would take more time and definitely more investment than he's shown so far.

[Mick]

 

are you now saying you wish all those champions league games and european qualifications had never happened ?

 

mackems.gif

 

priceless..........  mackems.gif

 

Where did I say that?

[NE5]

I'd really like a timeline of how Ozzies single quote, paraphrased as " so long as the new owners were chasing success I don't see what's wrong with a change at the top", has morphed into "I don't care who the new owners are.  Anyone can do a better job than Shepherd."

 

Oh wait, this was a thread about Wise.  Was.

 

the quote is :

 

"any individual or group resourceful enough to raise the £100 million plus that would be needed today to take over the club is likely also to be intelligent and resourceful enough to make a better fist of it than the current board" - ozzie mandiarse 24th Oct 2006

 

So, the obvious answer is that they haven't ? Which, using mandiarse's remarkable gift of hindsight, would appear to be the case, wouldn't you agree ? Unless of course, he is still happy that the new regime is moving the club towards matching the european qualifications, capacity gates and therefore the long term revenue [at least] of the board he was slating, which is down to the appointment of Dennis Wise and other factors which come together as part of the running of the club  ?

Cheers.  I'd been unaware that quote was now the one under discussion. 

 

But actually yes, I have a major problem with your interpretation.

 

You've taken the last part of that sentence "... than the current board" and tried to apply it as a criticism of the entire tenure of the board.  When that quote was posted, Late October 2006, we were just in the middle of a 9 game winless streak, Roeder'd been found out as having completely lucked up that 7th place finish and there was still a lot of dissatisfaction floating around about the board, spending and Souness.  When Ozzie said that I think it's very, very clear he was talking about what they'd done recently and not what they'd done as a whole.

 

You are quite wrong. There was a lot of support for what Souness was doing, with mandiarse one of his main supporters.

 

I think his statement is very clear, as clear as is possible, meaning that he thought pretty much anybody would come in and do better.

Then the disagreement is the length of time to which he was speaking. 

 

You interpret it as "Do better than they've done since 1992", the entire rest of the world interprets it as "Do better since the sacking of SBR."

 

 

so the first 12 years of when they ran the club is being conveniently ignored here ?

It's not about convenience, it's about relevance and confidence.  Those 12 years prior would have come into consideration if someone was thinking "well, we're certainly not moving in the right direction anymore.  But they've gotten us there before" ... that would be the relevant part ... the confidence part would be the natural followup to that sentence in " but do they look like getting us there again?" and the only sane, lucid answer one can provide would be "no".  So in this context, those prior 12 weren't applicable. 

 

I fail to see how you're not grasping this very simple, very easy concept.  When someone in any walk of life, who has prior to now produced excellent results, loses the plot badly, you HAVE to ask "do they look like turning it around".  You HAVE to. Because it doesn't matter at that point how well they did in the past if they only look like they're dragging you down in the future.  At some point, yes, you have to say "OK.  What you did in the past was excellent but you can no longer move us forward."

 

I, and many others on here, were of the opinion that no, Shepherd et al could NOT. 

 

I will remind you, that we finished 7th only 2 years ago, a position that was achieved only twice in over 30 years prior to the Halls and Shepherd taking over the club. And a position, which, under the present setup and owner, we will never match. In my opinion.

I will remind you it was with Glenn Roeder at the helm, a man who's managed to get pretty much every other team he's managed relegated.  Does that mean his 7th place finish was the aberration or are all those relegations the odd ones out?  It was a fluke, as his prior and post history bears out.  Call it St. Glenn's Miracle Season, call it a vindication for Freddy Shepherd, call it whatever you want.  I and the majority of others will call it as it rightly is: a fluke.   

 

So what is your opinion of the setup of the club, including the appointment of Dennis Wise of which is incorporated, and the progress towards at least equalling the league positions, european qualifications, capacity crowds and therefore the revenue and interest in the club which their predecessors achieved ?

I think it was poorly planned, poorly executed and that Keegan, Llambias and Wise were all bad appointments. I think if MA wants to stick with a DOF/Academy/Manager-As-Coach idea it would be worth his time and money to go searching in continental Europe for such qualified individuals than within a country that has historically rejected such measures. 

 

I think such a setup could work in England but that it would take more time and definitely more investment than he's shown so far.

 

you were also of the opinion that "anyone" would be better than the Halls and Shepherd, despite all the evidence ie the clubs history, and common sense, which should have told you otherwise.

 

An owner / chairman who chooses not to back his manager will never be as good as one who does choose to back his manager. This was pointed out on many occasions, and not just by me, and was ignored by people like you.

 

The most amazing thing is, we have someone who chooses not to support and back his manager, and you still don't get it.

 

I don't think that any manager worth the time of day would allow himself to be dictated to over transfer judgements when it is his and not the DOF's job and reputation on the line. And if the DOF makes poor recruits I fail to see how changing the manager and not the DOF will make a significant change to anything.

 

 

[NE5]

 

are you now saying you wish all those champions league games and european qualifications had never happened ?

 

mackems.gif

 

priceless..........  mackems.gif

 

Where did I say that?

 

well. what are you saying then, if you aren't blaming them for leaving an unpaid 52,000 stadium, which is as ridiculous a statement as anything else you've ever said, and thats saying something.

 

[thomas]

you were also of the opinion that "anyone" would be better than the Halls and Shepherd, despite all the evidence ie the clubs history, and common sense, which should have told you otherwise.

I... er said ... you ... what? I've never come close to saying that but frankly I don't want to hear what misuse of logic you've used to arrive at the conclusion I had. 

 

An owner / chairman who chooses not to back his manager will never be as good as one who does choose to back his manager. This was pointed out on many occasions, and not just by me, and was ignored by people like you.

 

The most amazing thing is, we have someone who chooses not to support and back his manager, and you still don't get it.

Neither do you since you didn't address my main points of confidence and relevance. 

 

Instead You've chosen to rattle off some platitudes and wave your hands about and make noises over what an owner should or shouldn't do but you absolutely continue to refuse to confront the reality that Shepherd wasn't going to get things back on track.  You've changed track and changed your tune and tried to lead the conversation down another route because you know you're wrong but you can't bear to admit it. 

 

 

[Mick]

 

well. what are you saying then, if you aren't blaming them for leaving an unpaid 52,000 stadium, which is as ridiculous a statement as anything else you've ever said, and thats saying something.

 

 

You have flawed logic, I hope for your sake that you don't go on like this in person.

[NE5]

 

well. what are you saying then, if you aren't blaming them for leaving an unpaid 52,000 stadium, which is as ridiculous a statement as anything else you've ever said, and thats saying something.

 

 

You have flawed logic, I hope for your sake that you don't go on like this in person.

 

I hope you don't either, I don't think I've ever met anyone who spouts so much agenda driven rubbish.

 

Why not explain your point then ?

 

 

 

 

[Guest toonlass]

OH HURRAH!!!!

 

Another NE5/Mick thread. 

[NE5]

you were also of the opinion that "anyone" would be better than the Halls and Shepherd, despite all the evidence ie the clubs history, and common sense, which should have told you otherwise.

I... er said ... you ... what? I've never come close to saying that but frankly I don't want to hear what misuse of logic you've used to arrive at the conclusion I had. 

 

An owner / chairman who chooses not to back his manager will never be as good as one who does choose to back his manager. This was pointed out on many occasions, and not just by me, and was ignored by people like you.

 

The most amazing thing is, we have someone who chooses not to support and back his manager, and you still don't get it.

Neither do you since you didn't address my main points of confidence and relevance. 

 

Instead You've chosen to rattle off some platitudes and wave your hands about and make noises over what an owner should or shouldn't do but you absolutely continue to refuse to confront the reality that Shepherd wasn't going to get things back on track.  You've changed track and changed your tune and tried to lead the conversation down another route because you know you're wrong but you can't bear to admit it. 

 

 

 

I'm wrong for saying that Ashley hasn't and never will match the european qualifications of his predecessors ? I don't think so.

 

 

[thomas]

you were also of the opinion that "anyone" would be better than the Halls and Shepherd, despite all the evidence ie the clubs history, and common sense, which should have told you otherwise.

I... er said ... you ... what? I've never come close to saying that but frankly I don't want to hear what misuse of logic you've used to arrive at the conclusion I had. 

 

An owner / chairman who chooses not to back his manager will never be as good as one who does choose to back his manager. This was pointed out on many occasions, and not just by me, and was ignored by people like you.

 

The most amazing thing is, we have someone who chooses not to support and back his manager, and you still don't get it.

Neither do you since you didn't address my main points of confidence and relevance. 

 

Instead You've chosen to rattle off some platitudes and wave your hands about and make noises over what an owner should or shouldn't do but you absolutely continue to refuse to confront the reality that Shepherd wasn't going to get things back on track.  You've changed track and changed your tune and tried to lead the conversation down another route because you know you're wrong but you can't bear to admit it. 

I'm wrong for saying that Ashley hasn't and never will match the european qualifications of his predecessors ? I don't think so.

Very well.  You don't have confidence in Ashley.  By 2005 I'd lost confidence in Shepherd. 

 

Can't say either opinion is that controversial.

[NE5]

you were also of the opinion that "anyone" would be better than the Halls and Shepherd, despite all the evidence ie the clubs history, and common sense, which should have told you otherwise.

I... er said ... you ... what? I've never come close to saying that but frankly I don't want to hear what misuse of logic you've used to arrive at the conclusion I had. 

 

An owner / chairman who chooses not to back his manager will never be as good as one who does choose to back his manager. This was pointed out on many occasions, and not just by me, and was ignored by people like you.

 

The most amazing thing is, we have someone who chooses not to support and back his manager, and you still don't get it.

Neither do you since you didn't address my main points of confidence and relevance. 

 

Instead You've chosen to rattle off some platitudes and wave your hands about and make noises over what an owner should or shouldn't do but you absolutely continue to refuse to confront the reality that Shepherd wasn't going to get things back on track.  You've changed track and changed your tune and tried to lead the conversation down another route because you know you're wrong but you can't bear to admit it. 

I'm wrong for saying that Ashley hasn't and never will match the european qualifications of his predecessors ? I don't think so.

Very well.  You don't have confidence in Ashley.  By 2005 I'd lost confidence in Shepherd. 

 

Can't say either opinion is that controversial.

 

thats your prerogative, but a chairman/owner who has ambition and backs his manager, will always be better than one who does not, difficult a concept that it is.

 

 

[Guest fraser]

I'd really like a timeline of how Ozzies single quote, paraphrased as " so long as the new owners were chasing success I don't see what's wrong with a change at the top", has morphed into "I don't care who the new owners are.  Anyone can do a better job than Shepherd."

 

Oh wait, this was a thread about Wise.  Was.

 

the quote is :

 

"any individual or group resourceful enough to raise the £100 million plus that would be needed today to take over the club is likely also to be intelligent and resourceful enough to make a better fist of it than the current board" - ozzie mandiarse 24th Oct 2006

 

So, the obvious answer is that they haven't ? Which, using mandiarse's remarkable gift of hindsight, would appear to be the case, wouldn't you agree ? Unless of course, he is still happy that the new regime is moving the club towards matching the european qualifications, capacity gates and therefore the long term revenue [at least] of the board he was slating, which is down to the appointment of Dennis Wise and other factors which come together as part of the running of the club  ?

Cheers.  I'd been unaware that quote was now the one under discussion. 

 

But actually yes, I have a major problem with your interpretation.

 

You've taken the last part of that sentence "... than the current board" and tried to apply it as a criticism of the entire tenure of the board.  When that quote was posted, Late October 2006, we were just in the middle of a 9 game winless streak, Roeder'd been found out as having completely lucked up that 7th place finish and there was still a lot of dissatisfaction floating around about the board, spending and Souness.  When Ozzie said that I think it's very, very clear he was talking about what they'd done recently and not what they'd done as a whole.

 

You are quite wrong. There was a lot of support for what Souness was doing, with mandiarse one of his main supporters.

 

I think his statement is very clear, as clear as is possible, meaning that he thought pretty much anybody would come in and do better.

Then the disagreement is the length of time to which he was speaking. 

 

You interpret it as "Do better than they've done since 1992", the entire rest of the world interprets it as "Do better since the sacking of SBR."

 

 

so the first 12 years of when they ran the club is being conveniently ignored here ?

 

I will remind you, that we finished 7th only 2 years ago, a position that was achieved only twice in over 30 years prior to the Halls and Shepherd taking over the club. And a position, which, under the present setup and owner, we will never match. In my opinion.

 

So what is your opinion of the setup of the club, including the appointment of Dennis Wise of which is incorporated, and the progress towards at least equalling the league positions, european qualifications, capacity crowds and therefore the revenue and interest in the club which their predecessors achieved ?

 

 

 

Where would the money have come from if we were still in the Ownership of the Halls? How would we have funded our team rebuilding? Would you have expected the Halls to put the money up from their own pockets? If not, whose?

 

Genuinely curious btw.

 

The answer is that he hasn't got a f***ing clue.

 

Would that be a fulminating clue?

 

Not really, no.

 

The accurate definition of the verb 'to fulminate' is 'the statement and restatement (ad infinitum) of entirely circular arguments to the annoyance of other message-board users in the hope of getting those others, not involved, to nod in agreement with a particular emoticon, usually  mackems.gif.