Llambias Q&A with Chronicle: OP updated with Thursday's articles

[Guest firetotheworks]

Clicked into this thread, same old shit. Why am I not surprised. Pitiful.

[timnufc22]

Saying he's done a good job are exactly the same type of assumptions seeing as nobody really knows what he does.

He recruits players.

 

So it's his fault Keegan walked and we ended up in complete and utter turmoil? That'll be why people want him out then.

 

See what I mean?

No I fully understand why people want him out, I'm just saying he won't be sacked and he does a good job.

 

How do you know he does a good job when you don't even know what it is?

We know he recruits players, other wise his job title wouldn't be Executive Director (Football) - Recruitment or something to that effect I remember reaing it when he signed and thinking thats a bloody weird job title.  I'll find a link later when I have enough time.

 

I was under the impression it was his job to recruit young talent. However in January Kinnear then stated he'd need to speak to Wise about his first team signings.

Aye, they basically lied.  I trust the Sun more than I do statements on nufc.co.uk now.

 

Maybe his role's changed, or evolved. Who knows? I can't say that the precise nature of Dennis Wise's job description strikes me as one of the club's major issues right now, though.

 

I think in the context of us getting in a manager better than Joe Kinnear it's extremely relevant. Like it or not, other managers will not look on the Keegan affair favourably and would seek clarity on the matter if approached.

 

Well, just because we haven't seen his job description doesn't mean a potential manager won't get to discuss it.

They'll get to discuss it but I doubt it will change,  I honestly when Redknapp came for the interview that was the only reason he didn't take it and, if it wasn't for that we'd have wobbly face as manager now.

 

 

 

Even though Redknapp was never actually offered the job?

Well he definately had an interview,  Keegan  knew of the DOF plan when he took over, I'm sure they would have said this to redknapp and he basically would have said he wanted to work of his own accord, like he is at Spurs now.

 

The reason Redknapp never took the job is because he was never actually offered it.

 

That isn't what he says. Problem is, with two prolific self publicists (read: liars) contradicting one another, it's hard to tell where the actual truth is.

 

From what I remember, Redknapp was spoken to about whether he'd be interested in the job but claimed that he'd never move from the south coast so taking the job would be out of the question.

 

He wasn't offered the job because we already knew that he'd refuse it, but he was sounded out.

 

Harry was approached big time.

 

He confirms here he was approached and the 'system' was put to him:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/7596038.stm

[timnufc22]

Saying he's done a good job are exactly the same type of assumptions seeing as nobody really knows what he does.

He recruits players.

 

So it's his fault Keegan walked and we ended up in complete and utter turmoil? That'll be why people want him out then.

 

See what I mean?

No I fully understand why people want him out, I'm just saying he won't be sacked and he does a good job.

 

How do you know he does a good job when you don't even know what it is?

We know he recruits players, other wise his job title wouldn't be Executive Director (Football) - Recruitment or something to that effect I remember reaing it when he signed and thinking thats a bloody weird job title.  I'll find a link later when I have enough time.

 

I was under the impression it was his job to recruit young talent. However in January Kinnear then stated he'd need to speak to Wise about his first team signings.

Aye, they basically lied.  I trust the Sun more than I do statements on nufc.co.uk now.

 

Maybe his role's changed, or evolved. Who knows? I can't say that the precise nature of Dennis Wise's job description strikes me as one of the club's major issues right now, though.

 

I think in the context of us getting in a manager better than Joe Kinnear it's extremely relevant. Like it or not, other managers will not look on the Keegan affair favourably and would seek clarity on the matter if approached.

 

Well, just because we haven't seen his job description doesn't mean a potential manager won't get to discuss it.

They'll get to discuss it but I doubt it will change,  I honestly when Redknapp came for the interview that was the only reason he didn't take it and, if it wasn't for that we'd have wobbly face as manager now.

 

 

 

Even though Redknapp was never actually offered the job?

Well he definately had an interview,  Keegan  knew of the DOF plan when he took over, I'm sure they would have said this to redknapp and he basically would have said he wanted to work of his own accord, like he is at Spurs now.

 

The reason Redknapp never took the job is because he was never actually offered it.

 

That isn't what he says. Problem is, with two prolific self publicists (read: liars) contradicting one another, it's hard to tell where the actual truth is.

You know you're getting desperate when you're prepared to believe anything Redknapp says.

 

f***ing hell.

 

Every time I convince myself that you're retrievable but you're not.

 

Retrievable ?

 

The comments were talking about what difference does someone who is "odious" mean, so its a relevant question, as Ozzie Mandias has held a different view of someone else who was supposed to be "odious".

 

Whats different about it ?

 

And why do you insist I answer questions and not others ?

 

FWIW, I don't give a toss if someone is "odious", and that has been my view right down the line, if they perform for the club. I am not anti Denis Wise because he is "odious", I'm anti Denis Wise because he is filling a role I don't think is necessary and also in this role I think he is a hindrance to the chance of recruiting a good manager. I also don't think he's doing as well as some people are making him out to be.

 

What exactly is Wise's role?

 

I believe Kevin Keegan when he says he wasn't allowed to manage the club properly. And I've stated my objection to a DOF at any club, where I think no manager worth their salt would allow anybody else to dictate transfer targets to them.

 

Hope that answers your question

 

To be honest though that's just what you think Keegan wasn't allowed to do and your thoughts on the DoF role in general.  It doesn't really tell us exactly what Wise does with regards to recruitment at various levels within the club and what influence he has elsewhere.

 

FWIW I wasn't trying to catch you out.  While I'm happy with certain aspects of recruitment, I'm not entirely sure what Wise does or is supposed to do with regards to that and this IMO is half the problem.  If his role was finally clarified maybe some people wouldn't have the objections they currently have.  Although I know some idiots would still want him out regardless of what the actual facts are.

 

Exactly. Out of anything else, the thing I most wanted to hear in the Llambias Q & A was what SPECIFICALLY does Wise do, and the answer was yet again just a vague description of 'he looks around the world for players'...  again, that would mean he's just a scout then? So Why not have the title scout? So its back to square bloody one.

 

A different question of 'Is his role the best thing for NUFC?' seems to have been answered with 'no' - after Llambias confirming they want Kinnear long term. The answer could have been 'yes' if they went out for a better manager, because a better manager coming in in the summer would have backed up Wise's role as a good thing.

[Dave]

Fucking hell.

 

Every time I convince myself that you're retrievable but you're not.

 

Retrievable ?

 

The comments were talking about what difference does someone who is "odious" mean, so its a relevant question, as Ozzie Mandias has held a different view of someone else who was supposed to be "odious".

 

Whats different about it ?

 

And why do you insist I answer questions and not others ?

 

FWIW, I don't give a toss if someone is "odious", and that has been my view right down the line, if they perform for the club. I am not anti Denis Wise because he is "odious", I'm anti Denis Wise because he is filling a role I don't think is necessary and also in this role I think he is a hindrance to the chance of recruiting a good manager. I also don't think he's doing as well as some people are making him out to be.

 

 

 

Just as I thought; fuck all about Souness in there. Stick to the topic at hand and people might take you seriously.

 

I agree with you on Wise's apparent role, others disagree. Let's discuss that rather than Souness and other irrelevant things.

[NE5]

Fucking hell.

 

Every time I convince myself that you're retrievable but you're not.

 

Retrievable ?

 

The comments were talking about what difference does someone who is "odious" mean, so its a relevant question, as Ozzie Mandias has held a different view of someone else who was supposed to be "odious".

 

Whats different about it ?

 

And why do you insist I answer questions and not others ?

 

FWIW, I don't give a toss if someone is "odious", and that has been my view right down the line, if they perform for the club. I am not anti Denis Wise because he is "odious", I'm anti Denis Wise because he is filling a role I don't think is necessary and also in this role I think he is a hindrance to the chance of recruiting a good manager. I also don't think he's doing as well as some people are making him out to be.

 

 

 

Just as I thought; fuck all about Souness in there. Stick to the topic at hand and people might take you seriously.

 

I agree with you on Wise's apparent role, others disagree. Let's discuss that rather than Souness and other irrelevant things.

 

you agree with people like mandiarse, who posts bollocks one liners and doesn't reply to anything and posts on "relevant things" ?

 

What a joke.

 

I'm used to some people who disagree with me, always shown up to be clueless in the end. They will be again, and before you start spouting any bollocks, I'll remind you that I've paid for 3 years the same as you, and in my opinion it will be the older longer serving supporters like me, and members of the NUSC that bollocks spouters are slating just like they did the last regime, who won't bugger off and willl still be here when Ashley sends this club crashing back into the 2nd division/championship for a taste of REAL mediocrity.

 

 

 

 

[Dave]

 

I'm done. No doubt you'll take this as though you've 'won'.

[Shearergol]

What does Souness have to do with this?

 

you don't understand the principle I've outlined ?

 

 

 

I'll answer for you. Nothing.

 

I see. You don't understand the point/hypocrisy about odious people then which I knew mandiarse wouldn't answer. 

 

 

 

 

 

Souness has nothing to do with the current discussion. Stick to the topic at hand and people might consider taking you seriously.

 

you mean like when I said long before you and everybody else that Ashley was ruining the club ?

 

 

 

 

I'm assuming that's all you're looking for?

 

I'd far rather people like you saw sense, to be honest.

 

 

 

I've said numerous times that we needed to spend money.

 

I've said numerous times that the current approach isn't going to work.

 

I've said numerous times that we "could" be better off without Ashley.

 

What I won't admit though is that we weren't going in the same direction, albeit via a different path, under Shepherd. You constantly talk about proof, yet you fail to acknowledge the fact that we were in FACT going backwards.

 

Nobody disagrees with you that for a few years things were better under the Halls and Shepherd, yet you constantly argue that everyone on this board thinks that Ashley is the greatest owner ever. Why?

[NE5]

 

I'm done. No doubt you'll take this as though you've 'won'.

 

not in the slightest, just that your continual insistence that its always me who derails threads is bollocks. You know damn fine I was pointing out mandiarse's hypocrisy and if anything its this sort of thing which ruins a thread, if he gave intelligent replies then I would be forced to do the same, but he - and he's not the only one - can't do it and you know it.

 

Now, go and prove me wrong, and ask him when the f**k he's going to tell us what he thinks of a manager who wins 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards, surely the longest running saga on the board. Does he think its a good ambitious appointment or not.

 

Bet you don't.

 

 

[NE5]

What does Souness have to do with this?

 

you don't understand the principle I've outlined ?

 

 

 

I'll answer for you. Nothing.

 

I see. You don't understand the point/hypocrisy about odious people then which I knew mandiarse wouldn't answer. 

 

 

 

 

 

Souness has nothing to do with the current discussion. Stick to the topic at hand and people might consider taking you seriously.

 

you mean like when I said long before you and everybody else that Ashley was ruining the club ?

 

 

 

 

I'm assuming that's all you're looking for?

 

I'd far rather people like you saw sense, to be honest.

 

 

 

I've said numerous times that we needed to spend money.

 

I've said numerous times that the current approach isn't going to work.

 

I've said numerous times that we "could" be better off without Ashley.

 

What I won't admit though is that we weren't going in the same direction, albeit via a different path, under Shepherd. You constantly talk about proof, yet you fail to acknowledge the fact that we were in FACT going backwards.

 

Nobody disagrees with you that for a few years things were better under the Halls and Shepherd, yet you constantly argue that everyone on this board thinks that Ashley is the greatest owner ever. Why?

 

 

Well, I don't agree. Because I think if you back your managers, keep the stadium filled and the revenue coming in, you can get back onto the right road, but if you don't back your managers you've got no chance, because the other things will fall away.

 

Looking at what you've said above, I don't see your problem anyway and you should be stalking someone else. Somebody who is clueless and still backing Ashley in fact.

 

 

[madras]

What does Souness have to do with this?

 

you don't understand the principle I've outlined ?

 

 

 

I'll answer for you. Nothing.

 

I see. You don't understand the point/hypocrisy about odious people then which I knew mandiarse wouldn't answer. 

 

 

 

 

 

Souness has nothing to do with the current discussion. Stick to the topic at hand and people might consider taking you seriously.

 

you mean like when I said long before you and everybody else that Ashley was ruining the club ?

 

 

 

 

I'm assuming that's all you're looking for?

 

I'd far rather people like you saw sense, to be honest.

 

 

 

I've said numerous times that we needed to spend money.

 

I've said numerous times that the current approach isn't going to work.

 

I've said numerous times that we "could" be better off without Ashley.

 

What I won't admit though is that we weren't going in the same direction, albeit via a different path, under Shepherd. You constantly talk about proof, yet you fail to acknowledge the fact that we were in FACT going backwards.

 

Nobody disagrees with you that for a few years things were better under the Halls and Shepherd, yet you constantly argue that everyone on this board thinks that Ashley is the greatest owner ever. Why?

 

 

Well, I don't agree. Because I think if you back your managers, keep the stadium filled and the revenue coming in, you can get back onto the right road, but if you don't back your managers you've got no chance, because the other things will fall away.

 

Looking at what you've said above, I don't see your problem anyway and you should be stalking someone else. Somebody who is clueless and still backing Ashley in fact.

 

 

back to the "back the manager" mantra. on page 39 i think it was you were saying they probably wouldn't. allardyce to steady the ship,build a team without spending money etc.

 

had fred and friends still been here do you think we would  have been borrowing more in order compete or cutting the 70% of turnover wage bill and trying to get the debt manageable ?

[NE5]

What does Souness have to do with this?

 

you don't understand the principle I've outlined ?

 

 

 

I'll answer for you. Nothing.

 

I see. You don't understand the point/hypocrisy about odious people then which I knew mandiarse wouldn't answer. 

 

 

 

 

 

Souness has nothing to do with the current discussion. Stick to the topic at hand and people might consider taking you seriously.

 

you mean like when I said long before you and everybody else that Ashley was ruining the club ?

 

 

 

 

I'm assuming that's all you're looking for?

 

I'd far rather people like you saw sense, to be honest.

 

 

 

I've said numerous times that we needed to spend money.

 

I've said numerous times that the current approach isn't going to work.

 

I've said numerous times that we "could" be better off without Ashley.

 

What I won't admit though is that we weren't going in the same direction, albeit via a different path, under Shepherd. You constantly talk about proof, yet you fail to acknowledge the fact that we were in FACT going backwards.

 

Nobody disagrees with you that for a few years things were better under the Halls and Shepherd, yet you constantly argue that everyone on this board thinks that Ashley is the greatest owner ever. Why?

 

 

Well, I don't agree. Because I think if you back your managers, keep the stadium filled and the revenue coming in, you can get back onto the right road, but if you don't back your managers you've got no chance, because the other things will fall away.

 

Looking at what you've said above, I don't see your problem anyway and you should be stalking someone else. Somebody who is clueless and still backing Ashley in fact.

 

 

back to the "back the manager" mantra. on page 39 i think it was you were saying they probably wouldn't. allardyce to steady the ship,build a team without spending money etc.

 

had fred and friends still been here do you think we would  have been borrowing more in order compete or cutting the 70% of turnover wage bill and trying to get the debt manageable ?

 

don't tell me its the wrong idea, tell Real Madrid, and all the other leading, successful clubs in the world.

 

 

[madras]

What does Souness have to do with this?

 

you don't understand the principle I've outlined ?

 

 

 

I'll answer for you. Nothing.

 

I see. You don't understand the point/hypocrisy about odious people then which I knew mandiarse wouldn't answer. 

 

 

 

 

 

Souness has nothing to do with the current discussion. Stick to the topic at hand and people might consider taking you seriously.

 

you mean like when I said long before you and everybody else that Ashley was ruining the club ?

 

 

 

 

I'm assuming that's all you're looking for?

 

I'd far rather people like you saw sense, to be honest.

 

 

 

I've said numerous times that we needed to spend money.

 

I've said numerous times that the current approach isn't going to work.

 

I've said numerous times that we "could" be better off without Ashley.

 

What I won't admit though is that we weren't going in the same direction, albeit via a different path, under Shepherd. You constantly talk about proof, yet you fail to acknowledge the fact that we were in FACT going backwards.

 

Nobody disagrees with you that for a few years things were better under the Halls and Shepherd, yet you constantly argue that everyone on this board thinks that Ashley is the greatest owner ever. Why?

 

 

Well, I don't agree. Because I think if you back your managers, keep the stadium filled and the revenue coming in, you can get back onto the right road, but if you don't back your managers you've got no chance, because the other things will fall away.

 

Looking at what you've said above, I don't see your problem anyway and you should be stalking someone else. Somebody who is clueless and still backing Ashley in fact.

 

 

back to the "back the manager" mantra. on page 39 i think it was you were saying they probably wouldn't. allardyce to steady the ship,build a team without spending money etc.

 

had fred and friends still been here do you think we would  have been borrowing more in order compete or cutting the 70% of turnover wage bill and trying to get the debt manageable ?

 

don't tell me its the wrong idea, tell Real Madrid, and all the other leading, successful clubs in the world.

 

 

yes i'm sure our finances and ability to manage that sort of debt is very similar to real madrids.

[madras]

do you really want us to do things the real madrid way ?

[NE5]

do you really want us to do things the real madrid way ?

 

haha, do you think they are envious of us ?

 

[madras]

do you really want us to do things the real madrid way ?

 

haha, do you think they are envious of us ?

 

just thinking who you'd like as DOF as they have one.

[NE5]

do you really want us to do things the real madrid way ?

 

haha, do you think they are envious of us ?

 

just thinking who you'd like as DOF as they have one.

 

is it denis wise, finding players for people like Capello  ?

 

 

[madras]

do you really want us to do things the real madrid way ?

 

haha, do you think they are envious of us ?

 

just thinking who you'd like as DOF as they have one.

 

is it denis wise, finding players for people like Capello  ?

 

 

thought it was the very structure not the personnel you were against ?

 

 

and do you think our finaces compare ?

[NE5]

do you really want us to do things the real madrid way ?

 

haha, do you think they are envious of us ?

 

just thinking who you'd like as DOF as they have one.

 

is it denis wise, finding players for people like Capello  ?

 

 

thought it was the very structure not the personnel you were against ?

 

 

and do you think our finaces compare ?

 

yep, I'm talking about what it takes to succeed here in the premiership. Unfortunately, we don't play in the Spanish League.

 

Don't know how many times you need to be told this, but its a FACT. F - A - C - T. All the successful clubs have shitloads of debt.

 

 

[madras]

do you really want us to do things the real madrid way ?

 

haha, do you think they are envious of us ?

 

just thinking who you'd like as DOF as they have one.

 

is it denis wise, finding players for people like Capello  ?

 

 

thought it was the very structure not the personnel you were against ?

 

 

and do you think our finaces compare ?

 

yep, I'm talking about what it takes to succeed here in the premiership. Unfortunately, we don't play in the Spanish League.

 

Don't know how many times you need to be told this, but its a FACT. F - A - C - T. All the successful clubs have shitloads of debt.

 

 

all the sucessful clubs manage their debt well,operating profits etc....we just build up more year on year, you've admitted as much yourself by saying allardyce was brought in to steady the ship and build a team without spending.

 

 

we've been here before.

[mrmojorisin75]

Saying he's done a good job are exactly the same type of assumptions seeing as nobody really knows what he does. If people can't criticise because they don't know the full story it's hardly fair to then praise him based on the same lack of information.

 

We can only go off where we are at this point in time on the pitch. It's not great, is it?

 

again correct. Nowt like a reality check.

 

oh f*** me, what a load of s***

 

no, it isn't. YOU show ME where the club is in the league and also show me why important players have bailed out, if they are happy with the direction of the club.

 

 

 

the post dave made was about wise, wise is not in charge of the budget is he?  his boss is

 

i'm going to assume that difficult decisions have to be made within the constraints of that budget in his role as DOF/transfer kingpin or whatever you want to call him

 

it's not s**** from your perspective 'cause it meets your anti ashley-ism but it's s**** with regards his last sentence, blaming wise for where we are on the pitch is a f***ing joke imo

 

since he arrived we've signed potentially the best CB we've seen for ages, another very good one for 10m, a better winger than was already at the club and a few squad fillers...if you think wise WANTED to offer owen a pay cut, or let given/zog leave then you're mental

 

someone back up the anti wise s**** or f*** off with it, already said that but it was roundly ignored of course 'cause it ain't popular

 

To kick off, and without mentioning the KK issue, no new right-back (Ryan Taylor has clearly been bought as a midfielder) or left-back when successive managers have pinpointed those areas as desperately in need of strengthening. No creative central midfielder (another priority) to speak of either.

 

I would also seriously question your description of Colo as a "very good" CB - and he was hardly much of a discovery. But that's another argument.

 

which part of "difficult decisions" don't you fucking understand like?  we've been crying out for a CM for ages and they bought one within the budget, personally if it was a choice between nolan and a new right back or left back then i think they've made the correct one given enrique is doing quite well as is taylor filling in for beye

 

if they had 20m to work with chances are they'd have filled more holes in the squad BUT THEY DIDN'T HAVE 20m DID THEY

 

nor did i say colo was a discovery, certainly can't recall that...but to me and many others he's an argentine international doing quite well in his first season in the PL, other players have done much worse

 

anything else?

[Wallace]

Llambias interview with Mick Lowes was on Radio Newcastle this morning.  Will be more tomorrow morning.

 

The man does have a voice.

 

Nothing new though.

[Shearergol]

What does Souness have to do with this?

 

you don't understand the principle I've outlined ?

 

 

 

I'll answer for you. Nothing.

 

I see. You don't understand the point/hypocrisy about odious people then which I knew mandiarse wouldn't answer. 

 

 

 

 

 

Souness has nothing to do with the current discussion. Stick to the topic at hand and people might consider taking you seriously.

 

you mean like when I said long before you and everybody else that Ashley was ruining the club ?

 

 

 

 

I'm assuming that's all you're looking for?

 

I'd far rather people like you saw sense, to be honest.

 

 

 

I've said numerous times that we needed to spend money.

 

I've said numerous times that the current approach isn't going to work.

 

I've said numerous times that we "could" be better off without Ashley.

 

What I won't admit though is that we weren't going in the same direction, albeit via a different path, under Shepherd. You constantly talk about proof, yet you fail to acknowledge the fact that we were in FACT going backwards.

 

Nobody disagrees with you that for a few years things were better under the Halls and Shepherd, yet you constantly argue that everyone on this board thinks that Ashley is the greatest owner ever. Why?

 

 

Well, I don't agree. Because I think if you back your managers, keep the stadium filled and the revenue coming in, you can get back onto the right road, but if you don't back your managers you've got no chance, because the other things will fall away.

 

Looking at what you've said above, I don't see your problem anyway and you should be stalking someone else. Somebody who is clueless and still backing Ashley in fact.

 

 

 

Who is still backing Ashley, and I'll make them my next project

[relámpago blanco]

I wouldn't say I backed him but I like the scouting set up we have and the way the Academy is going.  Attack me at will.

[NE5]

What does Souness have to do with this?

 

you don't understand the principle I've outlined ?

 

 

 

I'll answer for you. Nothing.

 

I see. You don't understand the point/hypocrisy about odious people then which I knew mandiarse wouldn't answer. 

 

 

 

 

 

Souness has nothing to do with the current discussion. Stick to the topic at hand and people might consider taking you seriously.

 

you mean like when I said long before you and everybody else that Ashley was ruining the club ?

 

 

 

 

I'm assuming that's all you're looking for?

 

I'd far rather people like you saw sense, to be honest.

 

 

 

I've said numerous times that we needed to spend money.

 

I've said numerous times that the current approach isn't going to work.

 

I've said numerous times that we "could" be better off without Ashley.

 

What I won't admit though is that we weren't going in the same direction, albeit via a different path, under Shepherd. You constantly talk about proof, yet you fail to acknowledge the fact that we were in FACT going backwards.

 

Nobody disagrees with you that for a few years things were better under the Halls and Shepherd, yet you constantly argue that everyone on this board thinks that Ashley is the greatest owner ever. Why?

 

 

Well, I don't agree. Because I think if you back your managers, keep the stadium filled and the revenue coming in, you can get back onto the right road, but if you don't back your managers you've got no chance, because the other things will fall away.

 

Looking at what you've said above, I don't see your problem anyway and you should be stalking someone else. Somebody who is clueless and still backing Ashley in fact.

 

 

 

Who is still backing Ashley, and I'll make them my next project

 

why don't you ask the numerous people who are defending everything he does ?

 

 

[Shearergol]

What does Souness have to do with this?

 

you don't understand the principle I've outlined ?

 

 

 

I'll answer for you. Nothing.

 

I see. You don't understand the point/hypocrisy about odious people then which I knew mandiarse wouldn't answer. 

 

 

 

 

 

Souness has nothing to do with the current discussion. Stick to the topic at hand and people might consider taking you seriously.

 

you mean like when I said long before you and everybody else that Ashley was ruining the club ?

 

 

 

 

I'm assuming that's all you're looking for?

 

I'd far rather people like you saw sense, to be honest.

 

 

 

I've said numerous times that we needed to spend money.

 

I've said numerous times that the current approach isn't going to work.

 

I've said numerous times that we "could" be better off without Ashley.

 

What I won't admit though is that we weren't going in the same direction, albeit via a different path, under Shepherd. You constantly talk about proof, yet you fail to acknowledge the fact that we were in FACT going backwards.

 

Nobody disagrees with you that for a few years things were better under the Halls and Shepherd, yet you constantly argue that everyone on this board thinks that Ashley is the greatest owner ever. Why?

 

 

Well, I don't agree. Because I think if you back your managers, keep the stadium filled and the revenue coming in, you can get back onto the right road, but if you don't back your managers you've got no chance, because the other things will fall away.

 

Looking at what you've said above, I don't see your problem anyway and you should be stalking someone else. Somebody who is clueless and still backing Ashley in fact.

 

 

 

Who is still backing Ashley, and I'll make them my next project

 

why don't you ask the numerous people who are defending everything he does ?

 

 

 

I would, but I'm yet to see that they actually exist. Make it easier, and name names. Who here defends everything he does?