Financial meltdown?

[Guest Phil K]

rubbish. They were ambitious, Ashley is not, or hasn't shown it. That is why we are where we are. He's made profits in transfer windows while watching us go down, the last board would never have done that. The only person to blame is Mike Ashley, and nobody else. The approach he has will NEVER, EVER, match those european qualifications of his predecessors.

I can't understand why people are disagreeing with NE5 on this - he's clearly correct that they were indeed ambitious, and the complete sodding OPPOSITE of Ashley, whose football idiocy is going to get us relegated.

Was VERY unhappy at the stupidity shown by Shepherd in giving the job to Souness and Allardyce, but compared to bloody Kinnear and co - they are Jose effing Marinho, Alex Fergie and Rafa Benitez COMBINED

[Guest toonlass]

Appointing Allardyce could in no ways be seen to be ambitious. We would have already spent a year in the championship had he been allowed to stay on.

 

choosing a new manager to setup a new direction for the club, who pretty much was acknowledged by most people in the game to be ready for a job at one of the big clubs, isn't ambitious ?

 

 

HTT has also made an excellent post commenting on this.

 

I hope you don't twist this and make up any more lies again .......  

 

 

 

Unnecessary.

 

Sam Allardyce was taking us down. That was obvious to anyone who was watching.

[Guest Phil K]

Unnecessary.

 

Sam Allardyce was taking us down. That was obvious to anyone who was watching.

No, he was taking us down a route we didn't want to go down.

I doubt very much he would have taken us down.

His signings were poor though.

But so has been virually every player signed since.

Roeder few signings were actually not bad.

But he WOULD have taken us down.

[NE5]

Appointing Allardyce could in no ways be seen to be ambitious. We would have already spent a year in the championship had he been allowed to stay on.

 

choosing a new manager to setup a new direction for the club, who pretty much was acknowledged by most people in the game to be ready for a job at one of the big clubs, isn't ambitious ?

 

 

HTT has also made an excellent post commenting on this.

 

I hope you don't twist this and make up any more lies again .......  

 

 

 

Unnecessary.

 

 

 

your hypocrisy says not.

 

Still. Lets carry on with the thread eh.

 

 

[Dave]

Keep it sensible folks, there's no need for the personal stuff.

[Guest toonlass]

Unnecessary.

 

Sam Allardyce was taking us down. That was obvious to anyone who was watching.

No, he was taking us down a route we didn't want to go down.

I doubt very much he would have taken us down.

 

Results up until the point he was sacked suggest otherwise.

[dcmk]

Appointing Allardyce could in no ways be seen to be ambitious. We would have already spent a year in the championship had he been allowed to stay on.

 

choosing a new manager to setup a new direction for the club, who pretty much was acknowledged by most people in the game to be ready for a job at one of the big clubs, isn't ambitious ?

 

 

HTT has also made an excellent post commenting on this.

 

I hope you don't twist this and make up any more lies again .......  

 

 

 

Unnecessary.

 

Sam Allardyce was taking us down. That was obvious to anyone who was watching.

 

Allardyce was most peoples choice for the England job believe it or not.  To say it was a poor appointment just proves that hindsight is a wonderful thing, im sure you werent against him being here at the time. 

[Raconteur]

Appointing Allardyce could in no ways be seen to be ambitious. We would have already spent a year in the championship had he been allowed to stay on.

 

For some reason it seems that:

 

Shepherd taking stock of the awful state of the finances and doing something about it =

Ashley taking stock of the awful state of the finances and doing something about it =

 

Now I'm not going to say Ashley has gone about it the right way. He's gone too far, and our Premier League status is under major and unacceptable threat. But something had to be done, whether it was Shepherd or Ashley. At the time of the takeover we were an average football team with crippling finances - this is undeniable.

 

 

My hyperbole guage explodes every time I dare to enter one of these threads, so a fair-minded post such as this is pure gold.

 

As you were

[J7]

I cannot believe that NE5 thought that the last year of the Shepherd and Hall era was brilliant. We were consistantly poor, the fans were continuously disgruntled. Freddy Shepherd had clearly lost all control of the club. And yet because it happened to be better than the McKeag era 15 years previous it is excusable! What a load of tripe. We were already part of the way down the road we are on now under Ashley. Like I said earlier, this in no way excuses Ashley for failing to turn this around, but NE5 has to have been blind or asleep if he cannot see that Fred's last season in charge was terrible.

 

 

tell me where I said it was brilliant ?

 

With hindsight though - and someone like you shouldn't really need this - it was better than the current situation, and better than the vast majority of the years before the Halls and Shepherd too. That's my point.

Just because its better than the current situation doesnt mean we didn't need a change. Whether Shepherd was the best ever chairman pre-2004 doesnt matter. Whether Ashley is the worst ever chairman, that doesnt matter either.

 

You can't just use Ashley's record as a way of sticking up for Shepherds last years as chairman. We needed a change as Shepherd had totally lost the plot.

 

As for your manager point to me before, about it being luck. It isnt luck. We had just finished fifth and were in a great position to attract a new good manager. Someone with a proven record who could take us forward. It wasnt luck that Liverpool stumbled upon Benitez and they are where they are now. Chosing Souness purely because our dressing room was out of control is unforgivable and is a decision from which we have never recovered. It was a shocking appointment, SHEPHERDS APPOINTMENT! He totally lost the plot, whether he (wrongly) believed in Souness or not.

[Guest toonlass]

Appointing Allardyce could in no ways be seen to be ambitious. We would have already spent a year in the championship had he been allowed to stay on.

 

choosing a new manager to setup a new direction for the club, who pretty much was acknowledged by most people in the game to be ready for a job at one of the big clubs, isn't ambitious ?

 

 

HTT has also made an excellent post commenting on this.

 

I hope you don't twist this and make up any more lies again .......  

 

 

 

Unnecessary.

 

Sam Allardyce was taking us down. That was obvious to anyone who was watching.

 

Allardyce was most peoples choice for the England job believe it or not.  To say it was a poor appointment just proves that hindsight is a wonderful thing, im sure you werent against him being here at the time. 

 

I bet I was!

[NE5]

I cannot believe that NE5 thought that the last year of the Shepherd and Hall era was brilliant. We were consistantly poor, the fans were continuously disgruntled. Freddy Shepherd had clearly lost all control of the club. And yet because it happened to be better than the McKeag era 15 years previous it is excusable! What a load of tripe. We were already part of the way down the road we are on now under Ashley. Like I said earlier, this in no way excuses Ashley for failing to turn this around, but NE5 has to have been blind or asleep if he cannot see that Fred's last season in charge was terrible.

 

 

tell me where I said it was brilliant ?

 

With hindsight though - and someone like you shouldn't really need this - it was better than the current situation, and better than the vast majority of the years before the Halls and Shepherd too. That's my point.

Just because its better than the current situation doesnt mean we didn't need a change. Whether Shepherd was the best ever chairman pre-2004 doesnt matter. Whether Ashley is the worst ever chairman, that doesnt matter either.

 

You can't just use Ashley's record as a way of sticking up for Shepherds last years as chairman. We needed a change as Shepherd had totally lost the plot.

 

As for your manager point to me before, about it being luck. It isnt luck. We had just finished fifth and were in a great position to attract a new good manager. Someone with a proven record who could take us forward. It wasnt luck that Liverpool stumbled upon Benitez and they are where they are now. Chosing Souness purely because our dressing room was out of control is unforgivable and is a decision from which we have never recovered. It was a shocking appointment, SHEPHERDS APPOINTMENT! He totally lost the plot, whether he (wrongly) believed in Souness or not.

 

what makes me smile, is that you appear to think its all so easy, yet if it were so easy, all those clubs that didn't qualify for europe as often as we did, should have also found it all so easy.

 

BTW.....Shepherd was never the major shareholder, he didn't even hold 30% of the shares, so its extremely unlikely he appointed any manager - good or bad - all on his own.

 

I've also told you before. I didn't support Souness, I didn't support his buying and selling, but numerous others did. So don't criticise me for something I didn't do.

 

My stance is as always. We may have replaced Shepherd and Hall, but sadly it is for the worse, and the odds were quite highly stacked towards that, such is the FACT that so many other clubs didn't do as well as they did, making them good directors, far better than you give credit for.

 

 

[NE5]

Appointing Allardyce could in no ways be seen to be ambitious. We would have already spent a year in the championship had he been allowed to stay on.

 

choosing a new manager to setup a new direction for the club, who pretty much was acknowledged by most people in the game to be ready for a job at one of the big clubs, isn't ambitious ?

 

 

HTT has also made an excellent post commenting on this.

 

I hope you don't twist this and make up any more lies again .......  

 

 

 

Unnecessary.

 

Sam Allardyce was taking us down. That was obvious to anyone who was watching.

 

Allardyce was most peoples choice for the England job believe it or not.  To say it was a poor appointment just proves that hindsight is a wonderful thing , im sure you werent against him being here at the time. 

 

indeed, and used by many.

 

 

[Dave]

Did you support the sacking of Souness?

[NE5]

Did you support the sacking of Souness?

 

should have went when he assaulted Bellamy on the training ground, and blatantly put his ego before the best interests of the club, by playing him out of position to impose authority on him. This isn't hindsight Dave, I said it at the time.

 

 

[Dave]

I assume that's a yes. Why you can't post simple answers to simple questions is beyond me but whatever.

 

So you accept that we were suffering at his hands, were going nowhere but down spending an absolute fortune in the process, and realised it was time for change.

 

Hmm.

[NE5]

I assume that's a yes. Why you can't post simple answers to simple questions is beyond me but whatever.

 

So you accept that we were suffering at his hands, were going nowhere but down spending an absolute fortune in the process, and realised it was time for change.

 

Hmm.

 

I understand what you are saying. But my point is that backing your manager is critical to the real ambition to succeed.

 

Competing at the levels of the lower league teams is no good for NUFC, Ashley has done it and so thats where we have ended up despite all the advantages of the fanbase .

 

 

 

 

[Dave]

I assume that's a yes. Why you can't post simple answers to simple questions is beyond me but whatever.

 

So you accept that we were suffering at his hands, were going nowhere but down spending an absolute fortune in the process, and realised it was time for change.

 

Hmm.

 

I understand what you are saying. But my point is that backing your manager is critical to the real ambition to succeed.

 

Competing at the levels of the lower league teams is no good for NUFC, Ashley has done it and so thats where we have ended up despite all the advantages of the fanbase .

 

Nobody disputes any of that though, which is what winds so many up. Everyone with a brain accepts that ambition is absolutely essential to succeed in any fashion. Doesn't change the fact that we were already on the slide with average players, a manager who proved himself to be shite (and you know I backed his appointment) and horrific finances that turned out to be in critical trouble at the time of the takeover.

 

Ashley has done us no favours whatsoever on the pitch, NOBODY can argue that. But change was needed off it, and whoever took over would have found similarly poor financial performance.

[NE5]

I assume that's a yes. Why you can't post simple answers to simple questions is beyond me but whatever.

 

So you accept that we were suffering at his hands, were going nowhere but down spending an absolute fortune in the process, and realised it was time for change.

 

Hmm.

 

I understand what you are saying. But my point is that backing your manager is critical to the real ambition to succeed.

 

Competing at the levels of the lower league teams is no good for NUFC, Ashley has done it and so thats where we have ended up despite all the advantages of the fanbase .

 

Nobody disputes any of that though, which is what winds so many up. Everyone with a brain accepts that ambition is absolutely essential to succeed in any fashion. Doesn't change the fact that we were already on the slide with average players, a manager who proved himself to be shite (and you know I backed his appointment) and horrific finances that turned out to be in critical trouble at the time of the takeover.

 

Ashley has done us no favours whatsoever on the pitch, NOBODY can argue that. But change was needed off it, and whoever took over would have found similarly poor financial performance.

 

I've never said it didn't, however replacing with better was obviously going to be very difficult, this is what I find strange that people can't see - but I sort of understood at the time ie they hadn't known anything else.

 

Allardyce was an attempt to change direction, and I think if the Halls and Shepherd were still here we would not be in the position we are in now, however that can't be proved although I don't think anybody would say they would have sat throught 3 transfer windows and made a profit while in the predicament we are in.

 

 

[Dave]

I had high hopes for Ashley, though based on nothing I admit.

 

It's impossible to say though regarding the profit. Whilst I agree Shepherd would not choose to gamble like this, he may have had no choice, as Ashley would no doubt claim. The money raised might have been needed just to keep us afloat.

 

Ashley recognised the same need to change direction, he's just gone about it the wrong way. But fundamentally they both realised the financial side of the club was fucked.

[J7]

I cannot believe that NE5 thought that the last year of the Shepherd and Hall era was brilliant. We were consistantly poor, the fans were continuously disgruntled. Freddy Shepherd had clearly lost all control of the club. And yet because it happened to be better than the McKeag era 15 years previous it is excusable! What a load of tripe. We were already part of the way down the road we are on now under Ashley. Like I said earlier, this in no way excuses Ashley for failing to turn this around, but NE5 has to have been blind or asleep if he cannot see that Fred's last season in charge was terrible.

 

 

tell me where I said it was brilliant ?

 

With hindsight though - and someone like you shouldn't really need this - it was better than the current situation, and better than the vast majority of the years before the Halls and Shepherd too. That's my point.

Just because its better than the current situation doesnt mean we didn't need a change. Whether Shepherd was the best ever chairman pre-2004 doesnt matter. Whether Ashley is the worst ever chairman, that doesnt matter either.

 

You can't just use Ashley's record as a way of sticking up for Shepherds last years as chairman. We needed a change as Shepherd had totally lost the plot.

 

As for your manager point to me before, about it being luck. It isnt luck. We had just finished fifth and were in a great position to attract a new good manager. Someone with a proven record who could take us forward. It wasnt luck that Liverpool stumbled upon Benitez and they are where they are now. Chosing Souness purely because our dressing room was out of control is unforgivable and is a decision from which we have never recovered. It was a shocking appointment, SHEPHERDS APPOINTMENT! He totally lost the plot, whether he (wrongly) believed in Souness or not.

 

what makes me smile, is that you appear to think its all so easy, yet if it were so easy, all those clubs that didn't qualify for europe as often as we did, should have also found it all so easy.

 

BTW.....Shepherd was never the major shareholder, he didn't even hold 30% of the shares, so its extremely unlikely he appointed any manager - good or bad - all on his own.

 

I've also told you before. I didn't support Souness, I didn't support his buying and selling, but numerous others did. So don't criticise me for something I didn't do.

 

My stance is as always. We may have replaced Shepherd and Hall, but sadly it is for the worse, and the odds were quite highly stacked towards that, such is the FACT that so many other clubs didn't do as well as they did, making them good directors, far better than you give credit for.

You keep talking about qualifying for Europe so many times, however im not talking about pre-2004. Im not calling Shepherds whole record into question, only the period from the end of the season we finished 5th, until when he left. It can make you smile all you want, but its only that period im talking about.

 

Of course Shepherd had the main say on managerial appointments being chairman. He had by far the most power in that boardroom.

 

Im not even talking about whether you liked Souness or not. Im arguing about Freddie Shepherds record post-2004, not whether you as a person backed Souness or not. Im critisising Shepherds appointment, that has nothing to do with your opinion on it.

 

I agree we replaced Shepherd for the worse, however we still needed a change. Someone better than Ashley, and someone better than Shepherd in his later years. Someone who knew what they were doing and wouldnt make ridiculous decisions like Shepherd was making.

[NE5]

I cannot believe that NE5 thought that the last year of the Shepherd and Hall era was brilliant. We were consistantly poor, the fans were continuously disgruntled. Freddy Shepherd had clearly lost all control of the club. And yet because it happened to be better than the McKeag era 15 years previous it is excusable! What a load of tripe. We were already part of the way down the road we are on now under Ashley. Like I said earlier, this in no way excuses Ashley for failing to turn this around, but NE5 has to have been blind or asleep if he cannot see that Fred's last season in charge was terrible.

 

 

tell me where I said it was brilliant ?

 

With hindsight though - and someone like you shouldn't really need this - it was better than the current situation, and better than the vast majority of the years before the Halls and Shepherd too. That's my point.

Just because its better than the current situation doesnt mean we didn't need a change. Whether Shepherd was the best ever chairman pre-2004 doesnt matter. Whether Ashley is the worst ever chairman, that doesnt matter either.

 

You can't just use Ashley's record as a way of sticking up for Shepherds last years as chairman. We needed a change as Shepherd had totally lost the plot.

 

As for your manager point to me before, about it being luck. It isnt luck. We had just finished fifth and were in a great position to attract a new good manager. Someone with a proven record who could take us forward. It wasnt luck that Liverpool stumbled upon Benitez and they are where they are now. Chosing Souness purely because our dressing room was out of control is unforgivable and is a decision from which we have never recovered. It was a shocking appointment, SHEPHERDS APPOINTMENT! He totally lost the plot, whether he (wrongly) believed in Souness or not.

 

what makes me smile, is that you appear to think its all so easy, yet if it were so easy, all those clubs that didn't qualify for europe as often as we did, should have also found it all so easy.

 

BTW.....Shepherd was never the major shareholder, he didn't even hold 30% of the shares, so its extremely unlikely he appointed any manager - good or bad - all on his own.

 

I've also told you before. I didn't support Souness, I didn't support his buying and selling, but numerous others did. So don't criticise me for something I didn't do.

 

My stance is as always. We may have replaced Shepherd and Hall, but sadly it is for the worse, and the odds were quite highly stacked towards that, such is the FACT that so many other clubs didn't do as well as they did, making them good directors, far better than you give credit for.

You keep talking about qualifying for Europe so many times, however im not talking about pre-2004. Im not calling Shepherds whole record into question, only the period from the end of the season we finished 5th, until when he left. It can make you smile all you want, but its only that period im talking about.

 

Of course Shepherd had the main say on managerial appointments being chairman. He had by far the most power in that boardroom.

 

Im not even talking about whether you liked Souness or not. Im arguing about Freddie Shepherds record post-2004, not whether you as a person backed Souness or not. Im critisising Shepherds appointment, that has nothing to do with your opinion on it.

 

I agree we replaced Shepherd for the worse, however we still needed a change. Someone better than Ashley, and someone better than Shepherd in his later years. Someone who knew what they were doing and wouldnt make ridiculous decisions like Shepherd was making.

 

selective cherry picking is what you are doing though. Nobody knows if they could have done it again, but if they back their manager and have ambition they have a chance. If they don't, they have no chance. Thats my point.

 

 

[J7]

I cannot believe that NE5 thought that the last year of the Shepherd and Hall era was brilliant. We were consistantly poor, the fans were continuously disgruntled. Freddy Shepherd had clearly lost all control of the club. And yet because it happened to be better than the McKeag era 15 years previous it is excusable! What a load of tripe. We were already part of the way down the road we are on now under Ashley. Like I said earlier, this in no way excuses Ashley for failing to turn this around, but NE5 has to have been blind or asleep if he cannot see that Fred's last season in charge was terrible.

 

 

tell me where I said it was brilliant ?

 

With hindsight though - and someone like you shouldn't really need this - it was better than the current situation, and better than the vast majority of the years before the Halls and Shepherd too. That's my point.

Just because its better than the current situation doesnt mean we didn't need a change. Whether Shepherd was the best ever chairman pre-2004 doesnt matter. Whether Ashley is the worst ever chairman, that doesnt matter either.

 

You can't just use Ashley's record as a way of sticking up for Shepherds last years as chairman. We needed a change as Shepherd had totally lost the plot.

 

As for your manager point to me before, about it being luck. It isnt luck. We had just finished fifth and were in a great position to attract a new good manager. Someone with a proven record who could take us forward. It wasnt luck that Liverpool stumbled upon Benitez and they are where they are now. Chosing Souness purely because our dressing room was out of control is unforgivable and is a decision from which we have never recovered. It was a shocking appointment, SHEPHERDS APPOINTMENT! He totally lost the plot, whether he (wrongly) believed in Souness or not.

 

what makes me smile, is that you appear to think its all so easy, yet if it were so easy, all those clubs that didn't qualify for europe as often as we did, should have also found it all so easy.

 

BTW.....Shepherd was never the major shareholder, he didn't even hold 30% of the shares, so its extremely unlikely he appointed any manager - good or bad - all on his own.

 

I've also told you before. I didn't support Souness, I didn't support his buying and selling, but numerous others did. So don't criticise me for something I didn't do.

 

My stance is as always. We may have replaced Shepherd and Hall, but sadly it is for the worse, and the odds were quite highly stacked towards that, such is the FACT that so many other clubs didn't do as well as they did, making them good directors, far better than you give credit for.

You keep talking about qualifying for Europe so many times, however im not talking about pre-2004. Im not calling Shepherds whole record into question, only the period from the end of the season we finished 5th, until when he left. It can make you smile all you want, but its only that period im talking about.

 

Of course Shepherd had the main say on managerial appointments being chairman. He had by far the most power in that boardroom.

 

Im not even talking about whether you liked Souness or not. Im arguing about Freddie Shepherds record post-2004, not whether you as a person backed Souness or not. Im critisising Shepherds appointment, that has nothing to do with your opinion on it.

 

I agree we replaced Shepherd for the worse, however we still needed a change. Someone better than Ashley, and someone better than Shepherd in his later years. Someone who knew what they were doing and wouldnt make ridiculous decisions like Shepherd was making.

 

selective cherry picking is what you are doing though. Nobody knows if they could have done it again, but if they back their manager and have ambition they have a chance. If they don't, they have no chance. Thats my point.

Im not selective cherry picking though. Im talking about the last few years of his chairmanship, the part where I believe he lost the plot and we needed a change. There were good times before that, I wouldnt dispute it, but that was pretty irrelevant when discussing our position in 2007 after sacking Roeder and the reasons we were in that position.

 

I fully agree that good chairman have to back their managers, but as important, if not more important than that is picking a good manager.

[NE5]

I cannot believe that NE5 thought that the last year of the Shepherd and Hall era was brilliant. We were consistantly poor, the fans were continuously disgruntled. Freddy Shepherd had clearly lost all control of the club. And yet because it happened to be better than the McKeag era 15 years previous it is excusable! What a load of tripe. We were already part of the way down the road we are on now under Ashley. Like I said earlier, this in no way excuses Ashley for failing to turn this around, but NE5 has to have been blind or asleep if he cannot see that Fred's last season in charge was terrible.

 

 

tell me where I said it was brilliant ?

 

With hindsight though - and someone like you shouldn't really need this - it was better than the current situation, and better than the vast majority of the years before the Halls and Shepherd too. That's my point.

Just because its better than the current situation doesnt mean we didn't need a change. Whether Shepherd was the best ever chairman pre-2004 doesnt matter. Whether Ashley is the worst ever chairman, that doesnt matter either.

 

You can't just use Ashley's record as a way of sticking up for Shepherds last years as chairman. We needed a change as Shepherd had totally lost the plot.

 

As for your manager point to me before, about it being luck. It isnt luck. We had just finished fifth and were in a great position to attract a new good manager. Someone with a proven record who could take us forward. It wasnt luck that Liverpool stumbled upon Benitez and they are where they are now. Chosing Souness purely because our dressing room was out of control is unforgivable and is a decision from which we have never recovered. It was a shocking appointment, SHEPHERDS APPOINTMENT! He totally lost the plot, whether he (wrongly) believed in Souness or not.

 

what makes me smile, is that you appear to think its all so easy, yet if it were so easy, all those clubs that didn't qualify for europe as often as we did, should have also found it all so easy.

 

BTW.....Shepherd was never the major shareholder, he didn't even hold 30% of the shares, so its extremely unlikely he appointed any manager - good or bad - all on his own.

 

I've also told you before. I didn't support Souness, I didn't support his buying and selling, but numerous others did. So don't criticise me for something I didn't do.

 

My stance is as always. We may have replaced Shepherd and Hall, but sadly it is for the worse, and the odds were quite highly stacked towards that, such is the FACT that so many other clubs didn't do as well as they did, making them good directors, far better than you give credit for.

You keep talking about qualifying for Europe so many times, however im not talking about pre-2004. Im not calling Shepherds whole record into question, only the period from the end of the season we finished 5th, until when he left. It can make you smile all you want, but its only that period im talking about.

 

Of course Shepherd had the main say on managerial appointments being chairman. He had by far the most power in that boardroom.

 

Im not even talking about whether you liked Souness or not. Im arguing about Freddie Shepherds record post-2004, not whether you as a person backed Souness or not. Im critisising Shepherds appointment, that has nothing to do with your opinion on it.

 

I agree we replaced Shepherd for the worse, however we still needed a change. Someone better than Ashley, and someone better than Shepherd in his later years. Someone who knew what they were doing and wouldnt make ridiculous decisions like Shepherd was making.

 

selective cherry picking is what you are doing though. Nobody knows if they could have done it again, but if they back their manager and have ambition they have a chance. If they don't, they have no chance. Thats my point.

Im not selective cherry picking though. Im talking about the last few years of his chairmanship, the part where I believe he lost the plot and we needed a change. There were good times before that, I wouldnt dispute it, but that was pretty irrelevant when discussing our position in 2007 after sacking Roeder and the reasons we were in that position.

 

I fully agree that good chairman have to back their managers, but as important, if not more important than that is picking a good manager.

 

It isn't. If you are lucky enough, yes lucky enough, to appoint a good manager and the board is shite, then he will leave. Keegan is your proof of that. We have appointed plenty of proven track record managers, as have other clubs, and they have not been a success, so its not foolproof by any stretch. You have to accept that in an industry where only 3 teams are classified as successful in terms of winning silverware and a few more qualify for europe, most clubs "fail".......its the ambition in the boardroom which makes a football club, and everyone is chasing those 3 trophy winning managers.

 

 

[Mick]

 

rubbish. They were ambitious, Ashley is not, or hasn't shown it. That is why we are where we are. He's made profits in transfer windows while watching us go down, the last board would never have done that. The only person to blame is Mike Ashley, and nobody else. The approach he has will NEVER, EVER, match those european qualifications of his predecessors.

 

 

 

Profits were made in the transfer windows yet the club lost in the region of £30 million and £20 million in the last two set of accounts and will lose up to £40 million this year.  Ashley has paid the difference so far and will do so again.  We've made these losses without having to pay out the interest on the loans which we no longer have. 

 

How much would these losses have been if we still had to pay the interest on the loans?  What would have been the impact on the losses if we kept adding to them with more interest bearing loans?  How would these losses have been paid without Ashley?  Who would have paid the bills when they were due if we hadn't changed ownership?  Who would have loaned us money during the credit crunch?

 

You can't just pretend that everything was OK, it clearly wasn't.

[NE5]

 

rubbish. They were ambitious, Ashley is not, or hasn't shown it. That is why we are where we are. He's made profits in transfer windows while watching us go down, the last board would never have done that. The only person to blame is Mike Ashley, and nobody else. The approach he has will NEVER, EVER, match those european qualifications of his predecessors.

 

 

 

Profits were made in the transfer windows yet the club lost in the region of £30 million and £20 million in the last two set of accounts and will lose up to £40 million this year.  Ashley has paid the difference so far and will do so again.  We've made these losses without having to pay out the interest on the loans which we no longer have. 

 

How much would these losses have been if we still had to pay the interest on the loans?  What would have been the impact on the losses if we kept adding to them with more interest bearing loans?  How would these losses have been paid without Ashley?  Who would have paid the bills when they were due if we hadn't changed ownership?  Who would have loaned us money during the credit crunch?

 

You can't just pretend that everything was OK, it clearly wasn't.

 

has this been a group decision to come back