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

[NE5]

Clearly the old board were only responsible for things when they turned out well.

 

For those occasions when they turned out badly, blame magically disappears into fractions and percentages.

 

so what do you think of the merits of appointing a manager who won 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards - before they do well or not so well, with your own unique gift of hindsight  ?

You're still fully behind Mike Ashley and his amazing success I take it ?

 

 

 

 

Are we still on this question?

 

he's a bit shy with the answer, the truth being that nobody in their right mind would consider such an appointment to be a poor one, but he might surprise us if he replies.

 

 

it's not the only question on here that goes unanswered though is it ?

 

do you keep on borrowing while making a loss and debts mounting until you are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?

 

 

 

he's a bit shy with the answer. the truth being he knows you can't borrow indefinitly but to say so would break his argument. so instead he'll reply (not answer) that you won't compete without spending (whilst neglecting to say where the money will come from,maybe throwing in a reference to other clubs in debt of which none are actually in our position)

 

I've answered you. You don't know if the next player will be the one that gives you great value, you don't deliberately buy a player that doesn't give good value, and re the question that mandiarse refuses to answer because he KNOWS he has agreed with at least 4 of those 6 appointments, is that you don't deliberately appoint managers who you think will fail either.

 

The worst scenario is the one that Ashley is taking which is not to take the risks to compete, so stand by for a dose of REAL mediocrity, far worse than what you previously thought it was.

 

 

 

err, no it isnt.

 

yes it is. It led to near bankruptcy and one foot in the 3rd division.

 

 

 

 

no it isnt, the worst case scenario is that we're in so much financial trouble that the club folds. could anything worse happen to a football club? infact i'll answer for you, no, nothing could be worse than that.

 

eeerr..........if not for the Halls and Shepherd, we would have folded as a 3rd division club in 1991.

 

 

 

errr, my point still stands, take your board vs board blinkers off

 

eeerr, no, I think its you that is wearing blinkers. Ashleys current methods will not succeed if you live until you are 200.

 

 

[Syrette]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v146/deadreflection/stolen%20smilie%20folder/rolleyesbarf.gif

 

Just answer the questions already.

 

do you mean mandiarse ?

 

Shame eh, he likes to dish out the one liners and insults, but can't take it in return without whinging.

 

I've answered him. Aren't you curious to know what he thinks of the merits of appointing a manager who won 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards ? It would seem good enough to me, all he has to say is yes or no and why he thinks such a manager is under qualified if thats the case. Do YOU think it is under qualified ?

 

Thats my opinion anyway. Not too many clubs can appoint someone with a CV like that, wouldn't you agree ? Mike Ashley can't.

 

 

 

Yeah, I meant both of you.

 

Let's just say having a good CV will not always equal being successful at a job.

[Dr Venkman]

Clearly the old board were only responsible for things when they turned out well.

 

For those occasions when they turned out badly, blame magically disappears into fractions and percentages.

 

so what do you think of the merits of appointing a manager who won 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards - before they do well or not so well, with your own unique gift of hindsight  ?

You're still fully behind Mike Ashley and his amazing success I take it ?

 

 

 

 

Are we still on this question?

 

he's a bit shy with the answer, the truth being that nobody in their right mind would consider such an appointment to be a poor one, but he might surprise us if he replies.

 

 

it's not the only question on here that goes unanswered though is it ?

 

do you keep on borrowing while making a loss and debts mounting until you are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?

 

 

 

he's a bit shy with the answer. the truth being he knows you can't borrow indefinitly but to say so would break his argument. so instead he'll reply (not answer) that you won't compete without spending (whilst neglecting to say where the money will come from,maybe throwing in a reference to other clubs in debt of which none are actually in our position)

 

I've answered you. You don't know if the next player will be the one that gives you great value, you don't deliberately buy a player that doesn't give good value, and re the question that mandiarse refuses to answer because he KNOWS he has agreed with at least 4 of those 6 appointments, is that you don't deliberately appoint managers who you think will fail either.

 

The worst scenario is the one that Ashley is taking which is not to take the risks to compete, so stand by for a dose of REAL mediocrity, far worse than what you previously thought it was.

 

 

 

err, no it isnt.

 

yes it is. It led to near bankruptcy and one foot in the 3rd division.

 

 

 

 

no it isnt, the worst case scenario is that we're in so much financial trouble that the club folds. could anything worse happen to a football club? infact i'll answer for you, no, nothing could be worse than that.

 

eeerr..........if not for the Halls and Shepherd, we would have folded as a 3rd division club in 1991.

 

 

 

errr, my point still stands, take your board vs board blinkers off

 

eeerr, no, I think its you that is wearing blinkers. Ashleys current methods will not succeed if you live until you are 200.

 

 

 

jesus christ. i didnt say ANYTHING about ashley or ANYTHING about shepherd. you stated that the worst case scenario was that the board didnt take risks to compete and we ended up mediocre as a consequence. explain to me how not existing as a football club is preferable to mediocrity.....

[madras]

If you're not telling a brazen lie, it would be easy to prove me wrong by linking to your "answer".

 

But you can't, because you haven't answered it.

 

Honest, it's like dealing with a five-year-old.

 

..and yet you do the same and not answer his question - pure hypocrisy. 

doesn't make any difference. I've answered all NE5's questions to me honestly and straightforwardly but he wont do me the curtesy of replying to my question in a similar manner.

[madras]

If you're not telling a brazen lie, it would be easy to prove me wrong by linking to your "answer".

 

But you can't, because you haven't answered it.

 

Honest, it's like dealing with a five-year-old.

 

For the last time. If you back your managers and have a big fanbase like we do, then you can qualify for the Champions League, they had proved they knew how to do it.

 

So. In accordance with your prediction which is in my sig, do you think Ashley will do better or even match them, and do you think that an unbacked Joe Kinnear is more qualified to do it than a backed manager who has won 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards.

 

A 4 year old could answer this.

 

 

it's a lottery though isn't it so appointing a manager with those credentials is pointless...no ?

[NE5]

If you're not telling a brazen lie, it would be easy to prove me wrong by linking to your "answer".

 

But you can't, because you haven't answered it.

 

Honest, it's like dealing with a five-year-old.

 

For the last time. If you back your managers and have a big fanbase like we do, then you can qualify for the Champions League, they had proved they knew how to do it.

 

So. In accordance with your prediction which is in my sig, do you think Ashley will do better or even match them, and do you think that an unbacked Joe Kinnear is more qualified to do it than a backed manager who has won 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards.

 

A 4 year old could answer this.

 

 

it's a lottery though isn't it so appointing a manager with those credentials is pointless...no ?

 

Well, Chelsea thought they had a sure fire winner when they appointed Phil Scolari, unfortunately its only us who appoint managers that don't succeed isn't it ? Maybe we should have stuck with Ardiles, and not built up the support that led to the bigger spending and the debts .......

 

 

 

[NE5]

Clearly the old board were only responsible for things when they turned out well.

 

For those occasions when they turned out badly, blame magically disappears into fractions and percentages.

 

so what do you think of the merits of appointing a manager who won 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards - before they do well or not so well, with your own unique gift of hindsight  ?

You're still fully behind Mike Ashley and his amazing success I take it ?

 

 

 

 

Are we still on this question?

 

he's a bit shy with the answer, the truth being that nobody in their right mind would consider such an appointment to be a poor one, but he might surprise us if he replies.

 

 

it's not the only question on here that goes unanswered though is it ?

 

do you keep on borrowing while making a loss and debts mounting until you are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?

 

 

 

he's a bit shy with the answer. the truth being he knows you can't borrow indefinitly but to say so would break his argument. so instead he'll reply (not answer) that you won't compete without spending (whilst neglecting to say where the money will come from,maybe throwing in a reference to other clubs in debt of which none are actually in our position)

 

I've answered you. You don't know if the next player will be the one that gives you great value, you don't deliberately buy a player that doesn't give good value, and re the question that mandiarse refuses to answer because he KNOWS he has agreed with at least 4 of those 6 appointments, is that you don't deliberately appoint managers who you think will fail either.

 

The worst scenario is the one that Ashley is taking which is not to take the risks to compete, so stand by for a dose of REAL mediocrity, far worse than what you previously thought it was.

 

 

 

err, no it isnt.

 

yes it is. It led to near bankruptcy and one foot in the 3rd division.

 

 

 

 

no it isnt, the worst case scenario is that we're in so much financial trouble that the club folds. could anything worse happen to a football club? infact i'll answer for you, no, nothing could be worse than that.

 

eeerr..........if not for the Halls and Shepherd, we would have folded as a 3rd division club in 1991.

 

 

 

errr, my point still stands, take your board vs board blinkers off

 

eeerr, no, I think its you that is wearing blinkers. Ashleys current methods will not succeed if you live until you are 200.

 

 

 

jesus christ. i didnt say ANYTHING about ashley or ANYTHING about shepherd. you stated that the worst case scenario was that the board didnt take risks to compete and we ended up mediocre as a consequence. explain to me how not existing as a football club is preferable to mediocrity.....

 

I've showed you that mediocrity, and settling for it, leads to worse, don't you get this ?

 

 

[NE5]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v146/deadreflection/stolen%20smilie%20folder/rolleyesbarf.gif

 

Just answer the questions already.

 

do you mean mandiarse ?

 

Shame eh, he likes to dish out the one liners and insults, but can't take it in return without whinging.

 

I've answered him. Aren't you curious to know what he thinks of the merits of appointing a manager who won 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards ? It would seem good enough to me, all he has to say is yes or no and why he thinks such a manager is under qualified if thats the case. Do YOU think it is under qualified ?

 

Thats my opinion anyway. Not too many clubs can appoint someone with a CV like that, wouldn't you agree ? Mike Ashley can't.

 

 

 

Yeah, I meant both of you.

 

Let's just say having a good CV will not always equal being successful at a job.

 

 

OK then, so how do you judge managers ?

 

Serious question, in view of my current debate with madras [again]

 

 

[Syrette]

On results? On the effect they have on the club? What sort of legacy they leave?

[NE5]

On results? On the effect they have on the club? What sort of legacy they leave?

 

no, not hindsight. What criteria do you think should be applied when looking for the "right one".

 

 

[Mick]

 

what, a choice between Ashley v Halls and Shepherd ? No brainer, when Ashley takes us down you will have your answer.

 

 

 

If Ashley does take us down then he'll have failed, he'll have failed to turn the club around and change the direction in which we were heading althought he'll have done it cheaper.

[Guest toonlass]

NE5, can you post a link to the answer you gave about Shepherd leading us back to the Champions League because I can't find it.

[madras]

If you're not telling a brazen lie, it would be easy to prove me wrong by linking to your "answer".

 

But you can't, because you haven't answered it.

 

Honest, it's like dealing with a five-year-old.

 

For the last time. If you back your managers and have a big fanbase like we do, then you can qualify for the Champions League, they had proved they knew how to do it.

 

So. In accordance with your prediction which is in my sig, do you think Ashley will do better or even match them, and do you think that an unbacked Joe Kinnear is more qualified to do it than a backed manager who has won 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards.

 

A 4 year old could answer this.

 

 

it's a lottery though isn't it so appointing a manager with those credentials is pointless...no ?

 

Well, Chelsea thought they had a sure fire winner when they appointed Phil Scolari, unfortunately its only us who appoint managers that don't succeed isn't it ? Maybe we should have stuck with Ardiles, and not built up the support that led to the bigger spending and the debts .......

 

 

 

no. you appoint the best manager you can (do souness or roeder,allardyce or kinnear fall into this bracket ?), it will not always work out ,just like with players but i'll bet you don't look on players that way. a certainty it aint but it aint a lottery either.

 

honest and straight forward answer,fancy giving it a go (both of you) ?

 

[Dr Venkman]

Clearly the old board were only responsible for things when they turned out well.

 

For those occasions when they turned out badly, blame magically disappears into fractions and percentages.

 

so what do you think of the merits of appointing a manager who won 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards - before they do well or not so well, with your own unique gift of hindsight  ?

You're still fully behind Mike Ashley and his amazing success I take it ?

 

 

 

 

Are we still on this question?

 

he's a bit shy with the answer, the truth being that nobody in their right mind would consider such an appointment to be a poor one, but he might surprise us if he replies.

 

 

it's not the only question on here that goes unanswered though is it ?

 

do you keep on borrowing while making a loss and debts mounting until you are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?

 

 

 

he's a bit shy with the answer. the truth being he knows you can't borrow indefinitly but to say so would break his argument. so instead he'll reply (not answer) that you won't compete without spending (whilst neglecting to say where the money will come from,maybe throwing in a reference to other clubs in debt of which none are actually in our position)

 

I've answered you. You don't know if the next player will be the one that gives you great value, you don't deliberately buy a player that doesn't give good value, and re the question that mandiarse refuses to answer because he KNOWS he has agreed with at least 4 of those 6 appointments, is that you don't deliberately appoint managers who you think will fail either.

 

The worst scenario is the one that Ashley is taking which is not to take the risks to compete, so stand by for a dose of REAL mediocrity, far worse than what you previously thought it was.

 

 

 

err, no it isnt.

 

yes it is. It led to near bankruptcy and one foot in the 3rd division.

 

 

 

 

no it isnt, the worst case scenario is that we're in so much financial trouble that the club folds. could anything worse happen to a football club? infact i'll answer for you, no, nothing could be worse than that.

 

eeerr..........if not for the Halls and Shepherd, we would have folded as a 3rd division club in 1991.

 

 

 

errr, my point still stands, take your board vs board blinkers off

 

eeerr, no, I think its you that is wearing blinkers. Ashleys current methods will not succeed if you live until you are 200.

 

 

 

jesus christ. i didnt say ANYTHING about ashley or ANYTHING about shepherd. you stated that the worst case scenario was that the board didnt take risks to compete and we ended up mediocre as a consequence. explain to me how not existing as a football club is preferable to mediocrity.....

 

I've showed you that mediocrity, and settling for it, leads to worse, don't you get this ?

 

 

 

here are two scenarios, mediocrity and lack of existence

 

mediocrity > lack of existence. they are not the same thing, dont you get this?

[NE5]

NE5, can you post a link to the answer you gave about Shepherd leading us back to the Champions League because I can't find it.

 

the Halls and Shepherd ran the club, not Shepherd, and my reply is quite clear.

 

You can ask mandiarse to respond now.

 

In fact, why not answer it yourself, its only a few posts up the page.

 

 

[Guest toonlass]

NE5, can you post a link to the answer you gave about Shepherd leading us back to the Champions League because I can't find it.

 

the Halls and Shepherd ran the club, not Shepherd, and my reply is quite clear.

 

You can ask mandiarse to respond now.

 

 

 

Ok, well lets say Shepherd had bought the club, and not Ashley. Would he have led the club back to Champions League? I answered your question about the Magpie group so its your turn to answer mine.

[NE5]

 

what, a choice between Ashley v Halls and Shepherd ? No brainer, when Ashley takes us down you will have your answer.

 

 

 

If Ashley does take us down then he'll have failed, he'll have failed to turn the club around and change the direction in which we were heading althought he'll have done it cheaper.

 

have you been hiding somewhere the last few days ?

 

Do you still have confidence in your man Mike then ? Has he not embarrassed you yet ?

 

My post to mandiarse is also for you as you clearly feel he will still succeed.

 

Amazing, if he does half of what his predecessors did, you and others will be jumping up and down and preaching how successful he's been.

 

 

[Mick]

 

the Halls and Shepherd ran the club, not Shepherd, and my reply is quite clear.

 

You can ask mandiarse to respond now.

 

In fact, why not answer it yourself, its only a few posts up the page.

 

 

 

Have you any proof that the Hall's were having a say in the running of the club in the last few years?

[NE5]

If you're not telling a brazen lie, it would be easy to prove me wrong by linking to your "answer".

 

But you can't, because you haven't answered it.

 

Honest, it's like dealing with a five-year-old.

 

For the last time. If you back your managers and have a big fanbase like we do, then you can qualify for the Champions League, they had proved they knew how to do it.

 

So. In accordance with your prediction which is in my sig, do you think Ashley will do better or even match them, and do you think that an unbacked Joe Kinnear is more qualified to do it than a backed manager who has won 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards.

 

A 4 year old could answer this.

 

 

it's a lottery though isn't it so appointing a manager with those credentials is pointless...no ?

 

Well, Chelsea thought they had a sure fire winner when they appointed Phil Scolari, unfortunately its only us who appoint managers that don't succeed isn't it ? Maybe we should have stuck with Ardiles, and not built up the support that led to the bigger spending and the debts .......

 

 

 

no. you appoint the best manager you can (do souness or roeder,allardyce or kinnear fall into this bracket ?), it will not always work out ,just like with players but i'll bet you don't look on players that way. a certainty it aint but it aint a lottery either.

 

honest and straight forward answer,fancy giving it a go (both of you) ?

 

 

well, if isn't a bit of a lottery, on that basis, what would YOU call it ?

 

 

[NE5]

 

the Halls and Shepherd ran the club, not Shepherd, and my reply is quite clear.

 

You can ask mandiarse to respond now.

 

In fact, why not answer it yourself, its only a few posts up the page.

 

 

 

 

 

Have you any proof that the Hall's were having a say in the running of the club in the last few years?

 

have you any proof that they weren't ie that they were daft enough to leave millions completely in the hands of someone else with less shares having previously been partners ?

 

Daft idea isn't it  mackems.gif

[Mick]

 

have you been hiding somewhere the last few days ?

 

Do you still have confidence in your man Mike then ? Has he not embarrassed you yet ?

 

My post to mandiarse is also for you as you clearly feel he will still succeed.

 

Amazing, if he does half of what his predecessors did, you and others will be jumping up and down and preaching how successful he's been.

 

 

 

I don't know if will succeed but I do know that we finished higher in his first season than we did the season before he bought the club.  I have no idea where we'll finish this season but I'm not writing off our chances of finishing above 13th again.

[Dr Venkman]

 

the Halls and Shepherd ran the club, not Shepherd, and my reply is quite clear.

 

You can ask mandiarse to respond now.

 

In fact, why not answer it yourself, its only a few posts up the page.

 

 

 

 

 

Have you any proof that the Hall's were having a say in the running of the club in the last few years?

 

have you any proof that they weren't ie that they were daft enough to leave millions completely in the hands of someone else with less shares having previously been partners ?

 

Daft idea isn't it  mackems.gif

 

it was a completely daft idea yeah, one of the daftest imo

[madras]

If you're not telling a brazen lie, it would be easy to prove me wrong by linking to your "answer".

 

But you can't, because you haven't answered it.

 

Honest, it's like dealing with a five-year-old.

 

For the last time. If you back your managers and have a big fanbase like we do, then you can qualify for the Champions League, they had proved they knew how to do it.

 

So. In accordance with your prediction which is in my sig, do you think Ashley will do better or even match them, and do you think that an unbacked Joe Kinnear is more qualified to do it than a backed manager who has won 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards.

 

A 4 year old could answer this.

 

 

it's a lottery though isn't it so appointing a manager with those credentials is pointless...no ?

 

Well, Chelsea thought they had a sure fire winner when they appointed Phil Scolari, unfortunately its only us who appoint managers that don't succeed isn't it ? Maybe we should have stuck with Ardiles, and not built up the support that led to the bigger spending and the debts .......

 

 

 

no. you appoint the best manager you can (do souness or roeder,allardyce or kinnear fall into this bracket ?), it will not always work out ,just like with players but i'll bet you don't look on players that way. a certainty it aint but it aint a lottery either.

 

honest and straight forward answer,fancy giving it a go (both of you) ?

 

 

well, if isn't a bit of a lottery, on that basis, what would YOU call it ?

 

 

bit of a lottery ? what does that mean ? when did you sneak the "bit" in ?

 

a lottery would mean you may aswell choose anyone at random as opposed to using your judgemnt to get what you consider to be the best available. alex ferguson has bought some duffers in his time, does that mean buying players  is a lottery ? no it means his judgement isn't infallable however the better managers get things right more than the poor managers.

[NE5]

NE5, can you post a link to the answer you gave about Shepherd leading us back to the Champions League because I can't find it.

 

the Halls and Shepherd ran the club, not Shepherd, and my reply is quite clear.

 

You can ask mandiarse to respond now.

 

 

 

Ok, well lets say Shepherd had bought the club, and not Ashley. Would he have led the club back to Champions League? I answered your question about the Magpie group so its your turn to answer mine.

 

but he hasn't bought the club, and he never owned it. The Halls AND Shepherd, on the other hand, DID. And have been the best owners in the last 50 years by far.

 

 

[Mick]

 

have you any proof that they weren't ie that they were daft enough to leave millions completely in the hands of someone else with less shares having previously been partners ?

 

Daft idea isn't it  mackems.gif

 

See my sig' for the only comment on a major decision that I could find.