Lets all give thanks to uncle Mike....

[dcmk]

Yeah, we were unable to sustain a challenge. One season in the Champions League. Since then it's been downhill all the way. Not as far downhill as Leeds, nor as fast a descent. But in rough outline it's a similar story. That was my point.

 

We was in Europe consistently and among the elite teams in England.  Ok i will come at this from a different angle what could Shepherd have done more in Sir Bobby's campaign to 'sustain' a challenge?  I remember one season when we was top at the start of December, sounds like a club running well to me

 

Did he need to employ a Director of Football, spend more on youth?  just what buddy, you have got me very curious.

 

Strengthened a team that had lost a lot of its swagger after the Man U 2-6 ahead of the Partizan game? Handled the end of Robson's reign more intelligently? Not appointed Souness? Not thrown so much money at Souness? Not borrowed more money to deal with the effect of earlier borrowings? Not appointed Roeder? Generally, also, yes, throughout the old board's reign we should have paid a lot more attention to developing players, and had some kind of better scouting set-up that might have seen us not spend quite so much money on dross (you're always going to have signings that don't work out, but we really did waste a lot of money on players such as Marcelino, Luque, Viana, Boumsong...). We were also always crap at handling succession, with wild swings of approach and style from one manager to another.

 

Whatever, the fact is that the old board failed to build a sustainable set-up.

 

Alas, Ashley is currently making precisely the opposite mistake -- looking for long-term sustainability while neglecting the short-term.

 

I said during Sir Bobby Robsons campaign, we all know the mistakes after that.  He appointed the wrong manager (for all the right reasons) and Roeder temporary charge of the team at the end of that reason was remarkable.  Fully deserved his contract, i don't see how you can argue with letting go of a manager who was getting results. 

 

Succession of managers is always a difficult thing, after Mourinho and Grant was Scolari the right choice? No, Ramos? No.  There is always risk in appointing a manager.

 

However the thing you must do is back them, which Shepherd did.  He couldnt of done much more during SBR's spell too, SBR reign was falling apart around him.

[OzzieMandias]

I said during Sir Bobby Robsons campaign

 

But my point concerned a bigger picture.

 

we all know the mistakes after that. 

 

Glad to hear it.

 

He appointed the wrong manager (for all the right reasons) and Roeder temporary charge of the team at the end of that reason was remarkable.  Fully deserved his contract, i don't see how you can argue with letting go of a manager who was getting results. 

 

 

Succession of managers is always a difficult thing, after Mourinho and Grant was Scolari the right choice? No, Ramos? No.  There is always risk in appointing a manager.

 

However the thing you must do is back them, which Shepherd did.  He couldnt of done much more during SBR's spell too, SBR reign was falling apart around him.

 

You also have all the excuses down pat.

 

Fact remains, though, that Shepherd spectacularly failed to build on our brief flirtation with the Champions League.

[Fatwax]

I said during Sir Bobby Robsons campaign

 

But my point concerned a bigger picture. 

 

But his question was about Sir Bobbys' reign and what Shephard could have done during.. you basically haven't answered the question, which is quite rude. 

[dcmk]

I said during Sir Bobby Robsons campaign

 

But my point concerned a bigger picture.

 

we all know the mistakes after that. 

 

Glad to hear it.

 

He appointed the wrong manager (for all the right reasons) and Roeder temporary charge of the team at the end of that reason was remarkable.  Fully deserved his contract, i don't see how you can argue with letting go of a manager who was getting results. 

 

 

Succession of managers is always a difficult thing, after Mourinho and Grant was Scolari the right choice? No, Ramos? No.  There is always risk in appointing a manager.

 

However the thing you must do is back them, which Shepherd did.  He couldnt of done much more during SBR's spell too, SBR reign was falling apart around him.

 

You also have all the excuses down pat.

 

Fact remains, though, that Shepherd spectacularly failed to build on our brief flirtation with the Champions League.

 

Spectacularly failed?  By appointing the wrong man - (again for the right reasons) this was his only mistake and he backed him - like good chairmen do - Owen (One of england top goal scorers) to replace a legend, Luque (supposed to be brilliant), Boumsong (frnech international) highly rated - these signings all failed.  Football has risk attached to it, if we signed Messi tomorrow no 100% guarantees he will be a success here.  If we appointed Hitzfeld no guarantees blah blah blah.

 

As for my original question we were in Europe most years, 3rd, 4th, 5th - under Bobby which is quite 'sustained' assault on the Champions League places.  You still haven't answered what more he could of done in SBR's reign. ..

 

..this is the 3rd time of asking.  How is 3 years around those places among the elite clubs not over spending but instead considered 'not good enough'? 

[NE5]

Yeah, we were unable to sustain a challenge. One season in the Champions League. Since then it's been downhill all the way. Not as far downhill as Leeds, nor as fast a descent. But in rough outline it's a similar story. That was my point.

 

We was in Europe consistently and among the elite teams in England.  Ok i will come at this from a different angle what could Shepherd have done more in Sir Bobby's campaign to 'sustain' a challenge?  I remember one season when we was top at the start of December, sounds like a club running well to me

 

Did he need to employ a Director of Football, spend more on youth?  just what buddy, you have got me very curious.

 

Strengthened a team that had lost a lot of its swagger after the Man U 2-6 ahead of the Partizan game? Handled the end of Robson's reign more intelligently? Not appointed Souness? Not thrown so much money at Souness? Not borrowed more money to deal with the effect of earlier borrowings? Not appointed Roeder? Generally, also, yes, throughout the old board's reign we should have paid a lot more attention to developing players, and had some kind of better scouting set-up that might have seen us not spend quite so much money on dross (you're always going to have signings that don't work out, but we really did waste a lot of money on players such as Marcelino, Luque, Viana, Boumsong...). We were also always crap at handling succession, with wild swings of approach and style from one manager to another.

 

Whatever, the fact is that the old board failed to build a sustainable set-up.

 

Alas, Ashley is currently making precisely the opposite mistake -- looking for long-term sustainability while neglecting the short-term.

 

aaah.......the shame of it all. The best 15 years since the 1950's, and you call it "failure".

 

You couldn't make it up. When do you think we will see a repeat of these dismal years of champions league qualification and qualifying for europe more than any team bar 4 ?

 

And - I will remind you - YOU backed Souness, you backed his sales, his signings, the throwing of the money at him, everything, right up to the day he left.  You also completely agreed with the appointment of Allardyce, saying he would be a good appointment BEFORE he was appointed, yet you refuse point blank to tell us what your criteria is for appointing managers when it is pointed out that we appointed a manager with a better record than Alex Ferguson at the time.

 

YOu can't even apply your remarkable hindisight and admit that the board and chairman you slate has done a lot better than you predicted their successor would do - see your comment in my sig.

 

Pathetic really.

 

 

[NE5]

I said during Sir Bobby Robsons campaign

 

But my point concerned a bigger picture.

 

we all know the mistakes after that. 

 

Glad to hear it.

 

He appointed the wrong manager (for all the right reasons) and Roeder temporary charge of the team at the end of that reason was remarkable.  Fully deserved his contract, i don't see how you can argue with letting go of a manager who was getting results. 

 

 

Succession of managers is always a difficult thing, after Mourinho and Grant was Scolari the right choice? No, Ramos? No.  There is always risk in appointing a manager.

 

However the thing you must do is back them, which Shepherd did.  He couldnt of done much more during SBR's spell too, SBR reign was falling apart around him.

 

You also have all the excuses down pat.

 

Fact remains, though, that Shepherd spectacularly failed to build on our brief flirtation with the Champions League.

 

Spectacularly failed?  By appointing the wrong man - (again for the right reasons) this was his only mistake and he backed him - like good chairmen do - Owen (One of england top goal scorers) to replace a legend, Luque (supposed to be brilliant), Boumsong (frnech international) highly rated - these signings all failed.  Football has risk attached to it, if we signed Messi tomorrow no 100% guarantees he will be a success here.  If we appointed Hitzfeld no guarantees blah blah blah.

 

As for my original question we were in Europe most years, 3rd, 4th, 5th - under Bobby which is quite 'sustained' assault on the Champions League places.  You still haven't answered what more he could of done in SBR's reign. ..

 

..this is the 3rd time of asking.  How is 3 years around those places among the elite clubs not over spending but instead considered 'not good enough'? 

 

I've had this before with Ozzie mate, he wont' reply, but I wish you luck.

 

 

[Dave]

Does that mean you're going to stop?

[NE5]

Does that mean you're going to stop?

 

of course, but his re-writing of history is quite amusing, dcmk may or may not be aware of his history. I can't believe he is slating Souness - and the board/chairman who backed him - when he himself also agreed with everything he did, and the board for backing him.

 

I don't intend to continue Dave, but an admittance from ozzie that all this is in fact correct, would be in order don't you think ?

[Dave]

You won't convince him, he won't convince you. He won't admit anything, you won't admit anything. The rest of us worked this out years ago.

 

I can't believe I'm having to say this after everything that went on the other week, but give it a rest please.

[OzzieMandias]

All this nonsense because I used the expression "brief flirtation".

[madras]

Does that mean you're going to stop?

 

of course, but his re-writing of history is quite amusing, dcmk may or may not be aware of his history. I can't believe he is slating Souness - and the board/chairman who backed him - when he himself also agreed with everything he did, and the board for backing him.

 

I don't intend to continue Dave, but an admittance from ozzie that all this is in fact correct, would be in order don't you think ?

oh the irony.

 

not at all unlike your re-writing of history about the position we were in,in the spring of 2007.

[NE5]

Does that mean you're going to stop?

 

of course, but his re-writing of history is quite amusing, dcmk may or may not be aware of his history. I can't believe he is slating Souness - and the board/chairman who backed him - when he himself also agreed with everything he did, and the board for backing him.

 

I don't intend to continue Dave, but an admittance from ozzie that all this is in fact correct, would be in order don't you think ?

oh the irony.

 

not at all unlike your re-writing of history about the position we were in,in the spring of 2007.

 

Dave has asked me to not continue with this. You and mandiarse both know this so I won't. I've re-written nothing, what I say is true, so if you wish to make a debate of it, do it properly and address the specific points and say what you mean otherwise I will leave it for dcmk as he is smack on the button.

 

BTW I've been in your part of the world for the weekend ........ 

[Parky]

Where's MIck? 

[madras]

Does that mean you're going to stop?

 

of course, but his re-writing of history is quite amusing, dcmk may or may not be aware of his history. I can't believe he is slating Souness - and the board/chairman who backed him - when he himself also agreed with everything he did, and the board for backing him.

 

I don't intend to continue Dave, but an admittance from ozzie that all this is in fact correct, would be in order don't you think ?

oh the irony.

 

not at all unlike your re-writing of history about the position we were in,in the spring of 2007.

 

Dave has asked me to not continue with this. You and mandiarse both know this so I won't. I've re-written nothing, what I say is true, so if you wish to make a debate of it, do it properly and address the specific points and say what you mean otherwise I will leave it for dcmk as he is smack on the button.

 

BTW I've been in your part of the world for the weekend ........ 

thats not continuing it ?   

 

 

in my part of the world ?........aye,I saw that little black cloud hanging about, thought it could be you.