Financial meltdown?

[Guest PaddockLad]

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 s****, 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.

Your points are ridiculous. I can't believe you think it was just bad luck that we ended up with two s**** managers in a row. Thats the basis of your arguement when defending Shepherd! Unbelievable! We sacked a manager in Septemeber which is a stupid time of year to do it anyway , and appointed a terrible one as replacement. Can you not see that it wasnt just down to luck that we ended up with Souness in September while Liverpool brought Benitez in and gave him a summer to prepare.

 

so you think sacking Gullit was also a stupid thing to do [yes he walked before he was sacked]. Do you also think Chelsea were wrong to sack Mourinho in mid season ? Quite amazingly, every club in the history of the game has sacked a manager at a "stupid" time.

 

We also brought in Allardyce and he had all summer to prepare, does this mean you think if you give a manager a whole summer to prepare, they are nailed on to be successful or something. Ridiculous. Keegan also had all of last summer, the FACT is both those managers were let down by a s*** owner. The "timing" of their appointments is totally irrelevant when this happens.

 

Equally amazing is that every club in the history of the game has appointed 2 poor managers who did a poor job at some stage too .

This is where you go wrong, and others like you. The notion that we are the only club with directors who have done this, is ridiculous and naive in the extreme.

 

The fact, is that as I have told you, in terms of footballing achievement, the vast majority of football boards/owners/directors

are s****, but you and many others still don't realise that we had a good one for those years in spite of their mistakes.

 

Does what has happened since Ashley bought this club still not help your perspective on all of this ?

As for Gullit, I always thought he was the wrong man for the job and didn’t really want Dalgleish to go. He had totally lost the plot so unfortunately it was probably the correct decision to get rid of him when we did. Mourinho should never have been sacked.

 

Of course giving a manager the whole summer to work with their team doesn’t make them a nailed on success, but it certainly helps. The owners didn’t help either Big Sam or Keegan. I’m not sticking up for Ashley. Good managers with a full summer behind them, and backing from their chairman are more likely to be a success.

 

The two appointments were shocking and unforgivable. They weren’t just poor. There are only a handful of worse appointments in Premier League history. Appointing Souness was unforgivable. I wouldn’t claim we were the only club to make dreadful appointments, however two in a row shows a lack of good judgement by the board. Shepherd had lost the plot.

 

Just because Ashley has been worse, doesn’t make Shepherd record post 2004 look any better for me.

 

 

as I said earlier, cherry picking. Don't the previous years count ? Why not, when you look at the overall record ? Football is all about success, and they delivered more than anyone else at the club since the 1950's. Thats the point. When do you think someone else will match it ?

 

Do you really not understand, that even though they made mistakes, they still had more idea than the vast majority of other clubs' owners ?

 

 

 

 

 

Mistakes that led us to losing over 30 million in the last financial year that we have audited books for?...entirely on Sheps watch,and on home crowds of around 50k, the third highest in the league, which led to whoever looked at the books in say 2005/6/7 (the Jersey based group etc...the names I forget) saying a polite "no thanks" until we get the great fat clueless cockney rearing his head and thinking that due dilligence is for pussies.

 

Whichever way you look at the Shepherd regime, due to his "mistakes" we'd be more than likely in severe financial trouble as we speak now in 2009 if he hadn't sold the club and it took a half wit of titanic proportions in the shape of Ashley to buy it. Ashley's motives for buying us are a cross between the ultimate gamble for a born gambler and a stunt to make a huge short term financial killing and a bit of ego boosting publicity. The fact that the credit crunch got in the way is important, but really Ashley crapping himself after discovering "hidden debts" is very telling....Shepherd had plunged us into the red in a huge way with 2 FA cup final appearances and a few champions league games to show for it. Our (almost?) inevitable relagation will see a few of Freddies pigeons coming home to roost, and along with Ashley's staggeringly poor time at the club it will,I fear, see us deep in the brown stuff. Ashley didn't look at the books, and now can't afford to sort out the mess he,unlike other interested parties, didn't see coming.

 

FC Newcastle United 2010 anyone?

 

 

[Guest fading star]

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 s****, 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.

Your points are ridiculous. I can't believe you think it was just bad luck that we ended up with two s**** managers in a row. Thats the basis of your arguement when defending Shepherd! Unbelievable! We sacked a manager in Septemeber which is a stupid time of year to do it anyway , and appointed a terrible one as replacement. Can you not see that it wasnt just down to luck that we ended up with Souness in September while Liverpool brought Benitez in and gave him a summer to prepare.

 

so you think sacking Gullit was also a stupid thing to do [yes he walked before he was sacked]. Do you also think Chelsea were wrong to sack Mourinho in mid season ? Quite amazingly, every club in the history of the game has sacked a manager at a "stupid" time.

 

We also brought in Allardyce and he had all summer to prepare, does this mean you think if you give a manager a whole summer to prepare, they are nailed on to be successful or something. Ridiculous. Keegan also had all of last summer, the FACT is both those managers were let down by a s*** owner. The "timing" of their appointments is totally irrelevant when this happens.

 

Equally amazing is that every club in the history of the game has appointed 2 poor managers who did a poor job at some stage too .

This is where you go wrong, and others like you. The notion that we are the only club with directors who have done this, is ridiculous and naive in the extreme.

 

The fact, is that as I have told you, in terms of footballing achievement, the vast majority of football boards/owners/directors

are s****, but you and many others still don't realise that we had a good one for those years in spite of their mistakes.

 

Does what has happened since Ashley bought this club still not help your perspective on all of this ?

As for Gullit, I always thought he was the wrong man for the job and didn’t really want Dalgleish to go. He had totally lost the plot so unfortunately it was probably the correct decision to get rid of him when we did. Mourinho should never have been sacked.

 

Of course giving a manager the whole summer to work with their team doesn’t make them a nailed on success, but it certainly helps. The owners didn’t help either Big Sam or Keegan. I’m not sticking up for Ashley. Good managers with a full summer behind them, and backing from their chairman are more likely to be a success.

 

The two appointments were shocking and unforgivable. They weren’t just poor. There are only a handful of worse appointments in Premier League history. Appointing Souness was unforgivable. I wouldn’t claim we were the only club to make dreadful appointments, however two in a row shows a lack of good judgement by the board. Shepherd had lost the plot.

 

Just because Ashley has been worse, doesn’t make Shepherd record post 2004 look any better for me.

 

 

as I said earlier, cherry picking. Don't the previous years count ? Why not, when you look at the overall record ? Football is all about success, and they delivered more than anyone else at the club since the 1950's. Thats the point. When do you think someone else will match it ?

 

Do you really not understand, that even though they made mistakes, they still had more idea than the vast majority of other clubs' owners ?

 

 

 

 

when it comes to this game you are judged by where you are and where you are going.....not where you were 3 or 4 years ago. (been here with the clough analogy haven't we ?)

 

Precisely. We’re second bottom of the Premier League and heading for the Championship! Not because of the our debts but because of the way Mr Ashley has run the club. Five managers in less than two years, an idiotic management structure, and zero investment in the playing squad. It’s a recipe for disaster.

 

NE5’s point is, and always has been, that Mr Ashley’s lack of ambition doesn’t make business sense. That the financial position Shepherd left behind would look like a bed of roses compared to the problems relegation will bring. That Mr Ashley should have put his hand in his pocket (again if you like) and brought in some quality players to strengthen a woefully inadequate squad. He’s had three chances to do it - last January, over the summer and again this January - and gambled on scraping by with the current dross (minus anyone he could sell) each time.

 

It’s looks like NE5 is about to be proved right, but even if by some miracle we stay up he’d still be right. Hall and Shepherd had the right idea, even if the execution went a bit paired shaped towards the end of their tenure. Ashley is about to lose £250m for the want of a £20m investment.

 

[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.

 

It isn't. If you are lucky enough, yes lucky enough, to appoint a good manager and the board is s****, 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.

Your points are ridiculous. I can't believe you think it was just bad luck that we ended up with two s**** managers in a row. Thats the basis of your arguement when defending Shepherd! Unbelievable! We sacked a manager in Septemeber which is a stupid time of year to do it anyway , and appointed a terrible one as replacement. Can you not see that it wasnt just down to luck that we ended up with Souness in September while Liverpool brought Benitez in and gave him a summer to prepare.

 

so you think sacking Gullit was also a stupid thing to do [yes he walked before he was sacked]. Do you also think Chelsea were wrong to sack Mourinho in mid season ? Quite amazingly, every club in the history of the game has sacked a manager at a "stupid" time.

 

We also brought in Allardyce and he had all summer to prepare, does this mean you think if you give a manager a whole summer to prepare, they are nailed on to be successful or something. Ridiculous. Keegan also had all of last summer, the FACT is both those managers were let down by a s*** owner. The "timing" of their appointments is totally irrelevant when this happens.

 

Equally amazing is that every club in the history of the game has appointed 2 poor managers who did a poor job at some stage too .

This is where you go wrong, and others like you. The notion that we are the only club with directors who have done this, is ridiculous and naive in the extreme.

 

The fact, is that as I have told you, in terms of footballing achievement, the vast majority of football boards/owners/directors

are s****, but you and many others still don't realise that we had a good one for those years in spite of their mistakes.

 

Does what has happened since Ashley bought this club still not help your perspective on all of this ?

As for Gullit, I always thought he was the wrong man for the job and didn’t really want Dalgleish to go. He had totally lost the plot so unfortunately it was probably the correct decision to get rid of him when we did. Mourinho should never have been sacked.

 

Of course giving a manager the whole summer to work with their team doesn’t make them a nailed on success, but it certainly helps. The owners didn’t help either Big Sam or Keegan. I’m not sticking up for Ashley. Good managers with a full summer behind them, and backing from their chairman are more likely to be a success.

 

The two appointments were shocking and unforgivable. They weren’t just poor. There are only a handful of worse appointments in Premier League history. Appointing Souness was unforgivable. I wouldn’t claim we were the only club to make dreadful appointments, however two in a row shows a lack of good judgement by the board. Shepherd had lost the plot.

 

Just because Ashley has been worse, doesn’t make Shepherd record post 2004 look any better for me.

 

 

as I said earlier, cherry picking. Don't the previous years count ? Why not, when you look at the overall record ? Football is all about success, and they delivered more than anyone else at the club since the 1950's. Thats the point. When do you think someone else will match it ?

 

Do you really not understand, that even though they made mistakes, they still had more idea than the vast majority of other clubs' owners ?

As I said earlier, its not cherry picking though. I believe Shepherd lost the plot after 2004. It doesnt matter how good he was previously, because he lost the plot. He started to do the wrong things. You can't just keep looking back at past successes when things are going wrong all around you. At some point you have to look forward and change things.

 

This isnt an assessment on Shepherds whole record at the club.

[madras]

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 s****, 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.

Your points are ridiculous. I can't believe you think it was just bad luck that we ended up with two s**** managers in a row. Thats the basis of your arguement when defending Shepherd! Unbelievable! We sacked a manager in Septemeber which is a stupid time of year to do it anyway , and appointed a terrible one as replacement. Can you not see that it wasnt just down to luck that we ended up with Souness in September while Liverpool brought Benitez in and gave him a summer to prepare.

 

so you think sacking Gullit was also a stupid thing to do [yes he walked before he was sacked]. Do you also think Chelsea were wrong to sack Mourinho in mid season ? Quite amazingly, every club in the history of the game has sacked a manager at a "stupid" time.

 

We also brought in Allardyce and he had all summer to prepare, does this mean you think if you give a manager a whole summer to prepare, they are nailed on to be successful or something. Ridiculous. Keegan also had all of last summer, the FACT is both those managers were let down by a s*** owner. The "timing" of their appointments is totally irrelevant when this happens.

 

Equally amazing is that every club in the history of the game has appointed 2 poor managers who did a poor job at some stage too .

This is where you go wrong, and others like you. The notion that we are the only club with directors who have done this, is ridiculous and naive in the extreme.

 

The fact, is that as I have told you, in terms of footballing achievement, the vast majority of football boards/owners/directors

are s****, but you and many others still don't realise that we had a good one for those years in spite of their mistakes.

 

Does what has happened since Ashley bought this club still not help your perspective on all of this ?

As for Gullit, I always thought he was the wrong man for the job and didn’t really want Dalgleish to go. He had totally lost the plot so unfortunately it was probably the correct decision to get rid of him when we did. Mourinho should never have been sacked.

 

Of course giving a manager the whole summer to work with their team doesn’t make them a nailed on success, but it certainly helps. The owners didn’t help either Big Sam or Keegan. I’m not sticking up for Ashley. Good managers with a full summer behind them, and backing from their chairman are more likely to be a success.

 

The two appointments were shocking and unforgivable. They weren’t just poor. There are only a handful of worse appointments in Premier League history. Appointing Souness was unforgivable. I wouldn’t claim we were the only club to make dreadful appointments, however two in a row shows a lack of good judgement by the board. Shepherd had lost the plot.

 

Just because Ashley has been worse, doesn’t make Shepherd record post 2004 look any better for me.

 

 

as I said earlier, cherry picking. Don't the previous years count ? Why not, when you look at the overall record ? Football is all about success, and they delivered more than anyone else at the club since the 1950's. Thats the point. When do you think someone else will match it ?

 

Do you really not understand, that even though they made mistakes, they still had more idea than the vast majority of other clubs' owners ?

 

 

 

 

when it comes to this game you are judged by where you are and where you are going.....not where you were 3 or 4 years ago. (been here with the clough analogy haven't we ?)

 

Precisely. We’re second bottom of the Premier League and heading for the Championship! Not because of the our debts but because of the way Mr Ashley has run the club. Five managers in less than two years, an idiotic management structure, and zero investment in the playing squad. It’s a recipe for disaster.

 

NE5’s point is, and always has been, that Mr Ashley’s lack of ambition doesn’t make business sense. That the financial position Shepherd left behind would look like a bed of roses compared to the problems relegation will bring. That Mr Ashley should have put his hand in his pocket (again if you like) and brought in some quality players to strengthen a woefully inadequate squad. He’s had three chances to do it - last January, over the summer and again this January - and gambled on scraping by with the current dross (minus anyone he could sell) each time.

 

It’s looks like NE5 is about to be proved right, but even if by some miracle we stay up he’d still be right. Hall and Shepherd had the right idea, even if the execution went a bit paired shaped towards the end of their tenure. Ashley is about to lose £250m for the want of a £20m investment.

 

no one's denying that ashleys has made a balls of things. all the majority are pointing out is that we were in the clarts before ashley bought his first share in NUFC.

 

also the debts are quite a large reason for the position we are now in.

[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.

 

It isn't. If you are lucky enough, yes lucky enough, to appoint a good manager and the board is s****, 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.

Your points are ridiculous. I can't believe you think it was just bad luck that we ended up with two s**** managers in a row. Thats the basis of your arguement when defending Shepherd! Unbelievable! We sacked a manager in Septemeber which is a stupid time of year to do it anyway , and appointed a terrible one as replacement. Can you not see that it wasnt just down to luck that we ended up with Souness in September while Liverpool brought Benitez in and gave him a summer to prepare.

 

so you think sacking Gullit was also a stupid thing to do [yes he walked before he was sacked]. Do you also think Chelsea were wrong to sack Mourinho in mid season ? Quite amazingly, every club in the history of the game has sacked a manager at a "stupid" time.

 

We also brought in Allardyce and he had all summer to prepare, does this mean you think if you give a manager a whole summer to prepare, they are nailed on to be successful or something. Ridiculous. Keegan also had all of last summer, the FACT is both those managers were let down by a s*** owner. The "timing" of their appointments is totally irrelevant when this happens.

 

Equally amazing is that every club in the history of the game has appointed 2 poor managers who did a poor job at some stage too .

This is where you go wrong, and others like you. The notion that we are the only club with directors who have done this, is ridiculous and naive in the extreme.

 

The fact, is that as I have told you, in terms of footballing achievement, the vast majority of football boards/owners/directors

are s****, but you and many others still don't realise that we had a good one for those years in spite of their mistakes.

 

Does what has happened since Ashley bought this club still not help your perspective on all of this ?

As for Gullit, I always thought he was the wrong man for the job and didn’t really want Dalgleish to go. He had totally lost the plot so unfortunately it was probably the correct decision to get rid of him when we did. Mourinho should never have been sacked.

 

Of course giving a manager the whole summer to work with their team doesn’t make them a nailed on success, but it certainly helps. The owners didn’t help either Big Sam or Keegan. I’m not sticking up for Ashley. Good managers with a full summer behind them, and backing from their chairman are more likely to be a success.

 

The two appointments were shocking and unforgivable. They weren’t just poor. There are only a handful of worse appointments in Premier League history. Appointing Souness was unforgivable. I wouldn’t claim we were the only club to make dreadful appointments, however two in a row shows a lack of good judgement by the board. Shepherd had lost the plot.

 

Just because Ashley has been worse, doesn’t make Shepherd record post 2004 look any better for me.

 

 

as I said earlier, cherry picking. Don't the previous years count ? Why not, when you look at the overall record ? Football is all about success, and they delivered more than anyone else at the club since the 1950's. Thats the point. When do you think someone else will match it ?

 

Do you really not understand, that even though they made mistakes, they still had more idea than the vast majority of other clubs' owners ?

 

 

 

 

when it comes to this game you are judged by where you are and where you are going.....not where you were 3 or 4 years ago. (been here with the clough analogy haven't we ?)

 

Precisely. We’re second bottom of the Premier League and heading for the Championship! Not because of the our debts but because of the way Mr Ashley has run the club. Five managers in less than two years, an idiotic management structure, and zero investment in the playing squad. It’s a recipe for disaster.

 

NE5’s point is, and always has been, that Mr Ashley’s lack of ambition doesn’t make business sense. That the financial position Shepherd left behind would look like a bed of roses compared to the problems relegation will bring. That Mr Ashley should have put his hand in his pocket (again if you like) and brought in some quality players to strengthen a woefully inadequate squad. He’s had three chances to do it - last January, over the summer and again this January - and gambled on scraping by with the current dross (minus anyone he could sell) each time.

 

It’s looks like NE5 is about to be proved right, but even if by some miracle we stay up he’d still be right. Hall and Shepherd had the right idea, even if the execution went a bit paired shaped towards the end of their tenure. Ashley is about to lose £250m for the want of a £20m investment.

 

Two people can be bad, you do know that don't you. There arent just two options here, one good one bad. In my opinion Ashley has been worse for us than Shepherd, but that doesnt get Shepherd off the hook.

[Dave]

Two people can be bad, you do know that don't you. There arent just two options here, one good one bad. In my opinion Ashley has been worse for us than Shepherd, but that doesnt get Shepherd off the hook.

 

[Guest fading star]

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 s****, 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.

Your points are ridiculous. I can't believe you think it was just bad luck that we ended up with two s**** managers in a row. Thats the basis of your arguement when defending Shepherd! Unbelievable! We sacked a manager in Septemeber which is a stupid time of year to do it anyway , and appointed a terrible one as replacement. Can you not see that it wasnt just down to luck that we ended up with Souness in September while Liverpool brought Benitez in and gave him a summer to prepare.

 

so you think sacking Gullit was also a stupid thing to do [yes he walked before he was sacked]. Do you also think Chelsea were wrong to sack Mourinho in mid season ? Quite amazingly, every club in the history of the game has sacked a manager at a "stupid" time.

 

We also brought in Allardyce and he had all summer to prepare, does this mean you think if you give a manager a whole summer to prepare, they are nailed on to be successful or something. Ridiculous. Keegan also had all of last summer, the FACT is both those managers were let down by a s*** owner. The "timing" of their appointments is totally irrelevant when this happens.

 

Equally amazing is that every club in the history of the game has appointed 2 poor managers who did a poor job at some stage too .

This is where you go wrong, and others like you. The notion that we are the only club with directors who have done this, is ridiculous and naive in the extreme.

 

The fact, is that as I have told you, in terms of footballing achievement, the vast majority of football boards/owners/directors

are s****, but you and many others still don't realise that we had a good one for those years in spite of their mistakes.

 

Does what has happened since Ashley bought this club still not help your perspective on all of this ?

As for Gullit, I always thought he was the wrong man for the job and didn’t really want Dalgleish to go. He had totally lost the plot so unfortunately it was probably the correct decision to get rid of him when we did. Mourinho should never have been sacked.

 

Of course giving a manager the whole summer to work with their team doesn’t make them a nailed on success, but it certainly helps. The owners didn’t help either Big Sam or Keegan. I’m not sticking up for Ashley. Good managers with a full summer behind them, and backing from their chairman are more likely to be a success.

 

The two appointments were shocking and unforgivable. They weren’t just poor. There are only a handful of worse appointments in Premier League history. Appointing Souness was unforgivable. I wouldn’t claim we were the only club to make dreadful appointments, however two in a row shows a lack of good judgement by the board. Shepherd had lost the plot.

 

Just because Ashley has been worse, doesn’t make Shepherd record post 2004 look any better for me.

 

 

as I said earlier, cherry picking. Don't the previous years count ? Why not, when you look at the overall record ? Football is all about success, and they delivered more than anyone else at the club since the 1950's. Thats the point. When do you think someone else will match it ?

 

Do you really not understand, that even though they made mistakes, they still had more idea than the vast majority of other clubs' owners ?

 

 

 

 

when it comes to this game you are judged by where you are and where you are going.....not where you were 3 or 4 years ago. (been here with the clough analogy haven't we ?)

 

Precisely. We’re second bottom of the Premier League and heading for the Championship! Not because of the our debts but because of the way Mr Ashley has run the club. Five managers in less than two years, an idiotic management structure, and zero investment in the playing squad. It’s a recipe for disaster.

 

NE5’s point is, and always has been, that Mr Ashley’s lack of ambition doesn’t make business sense. That the financial position Shepherd left behind would look like a bed of roses compared to the problems relegation will bring. That Mr Ashley should have put his hand in his pocket (again if you like) and brought in some quality players to strengthen a woefully inadequate squad. He’s had three chances to do it - last January, over the summer and again this January - and gambled on scraping by with the current dross (minus anyone he could sell) each time.

 

It’s looks like NE5 is about to be proved right, but even if by some miracle we stay up he’d still be right. Hall and Shepherd had the right idea, even if the execution went a bit paired shaped towards the end of their tenure. Ashley is about to lose £250m for the want of a £20m investment.

 

no one's denying that ashleys has made a balls of things. all the majority are pointing out is that we were in the clarts before ashley bought his first share in NUFC.

 

also the debts are quite a large reason for the position we are now in.

We were in the clarts, now we're in deep shit.

 

Do you think Shepherd wanted to sell up?

[madras]

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 s****, 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.

Your points are ridiculous. I can't believe you think it was just bad luck that we ended up with two s**** managers in a row. Thats the basis of your arguement when defending Shepherd! Unbelievable! We sacked a manager in Septemeber which is a stupid time of year to do it anyway , and appointed a terrible one as replacement. Can you not see that it wasnt just down to luck that we ended up with Souness in September while Liverpool brought Benitez in and gave him a summer to prepare.

 

so you think sacking Gullit was also a stupid thing to do [yes he walked before he was sacked]. Do you also think Chelsea were wrong to sack Mourinho in mid season ? Quite amazingly, every club in the history of the game has sacked a manager at a "stupid" time.

 

We also brought in Allardyce and he had all summer to prepare, does this mean you think if you give a manager a whole summer to prepare, they are nailed on to be successful or something. Ridiculous. Keegan also had all of last summer, the FACT is both those managers were let down by a s*** owner. The "timing" of their appointments is totally irrelevant when this happens.

 

Equally amazing is that every club in the history of the game has appointed 2 poor managers who did a poor job at some stage too .

This is where you go wrong, and others like you. The notion that we are the only club with directors who have done this, is ridiculous and naive in the extreme.

 

The fact, is that as I have told you, in terms of footballing achievement, the vast majority of football boards/owners/directors

are s****, but you and many others still don't realise that we had a good one for those years in spite of their mistakes.

 

Does what has happened since Ashley bought this club still not help your perspective on all of this ?

As for Gullit, I always thought he was the wrong man for the job and didn’t really want Dalgleish to go. He had totally lost the plot so unfortunately it was probably the correct decision to get rid of him when we did. Mourinho should never have been sacked.

 

Of course giving a manager the whole summer to work with their team doesn’t make them a nailed on success, but it certainly helps. The owners didn’t help either Big Sam or Keegan. I’m not sticking up for Ashley. Good managers with a full summer behind them, and backing from their chairman are more likely to be a success.

 

The two appointments were shocking and unforgivable. They weren’t just poor. There are only a handful of worse appointments in Premier League history. Appointing Souness was unforgivable. I wouldn’t claim we were the only club to make dreadful appointments, however two in a row shows a lack of good judgement by the board. Shepherd had lost the plot.

 

Just because Ashley has been worse, doesn’t make Shepherd record post 2004 look any better for me.

 

 

as I said earlier, cherry picking. Don't the previous years count ? Why not, when you look at the overall record ? Football is all about success, and they delivered more than anyone else at the club since the 1950's. Thats the point. When do you think someone else will match it ?

 

Do you really not understand, that even though they made mistakes, they still had more idea than the vast majority of other clubs' owners ?

 

 

 

 

when it comes to this game you are judged by where you are and where you are going.....not where you were 3 or 4 years ago. (been here with the clough analogy haven't we ?)

 

Precisely. We’re second bottom of the Premier League and heading for the Championship! Not because of the our debts but because of the way Mr Ashley has run the club. Five managers in less than two years, an idiotic management structure, and zero investment in the playing squad. It’s a recipe for disaster.

 

NE5’s point is, and always has been, that Mr Ashley’s lack of ambition doesn’t make business sense. That the financial position Shepherd left behind would look like a bed of roses compared to the problems relegation will bring. That Mr Ashley should have put his hand in his pocket (again if you like) and brought in some quality players to strengthen a woefully inadequate squad. He’s had three chances to do it - last January, over the summer and again this January - and gambled on scraping by with the current dross (minus anyone he could sell) each time.

 

It’s looks like NE5 is about to be proved right, but even if by some miracle we stay up he’d still be right. Hall and Shepherd had the right idea, even if the execution went a bit paired shaped towards the end of their tenure. Ashley is about to lose £250m for the want of a £20m investment.

 

no one's denying that ashleys has made a balls of things. all the majority are pointing out is that we were in the clarts before ashley bought his first share in NUFC.

 

also the debts are quite a large reason for the position we are now in.

We were in the clarts, now we're in deep s***.

 

Do you think Shepherd wanted to sell up?

this had been coming for a while.

 

if he didn't want to sell he wouldn't have.

[Guest fading star]

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 s****, 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.

Your points are ridiculous. I can't believe you think it was just bad luck that we ended up with two s**** managers in a row. Thats the basis of your arguement when defending Shepherd! Unbelievable! We sacked a manager in Septemeber which is a stupid time of year to do it anyway , and appointed a terrible one as replacement. Can you not see that it wasnt just down to luck that we ended up with Souness in September while Liverpool brought Benitez in and gave him a summer to prepare.

 

so you think sacking Gullit was also a stupid thing to do [yes he walked before he was sacked]. Do you also think Chelsea were wrong to sack Mourinho in mid season ? Quite amazingly, every club in the history of the game has sacked a manager at a "stupid" time.

 

We also brought in Allardyce and he had all summer to prepare, does this mean you think if you give a manager a whole summer to prepare, they are nailed on to be successful or something. Ridiculous. Keegan also had all of last summer, the FACT is both those managers were let down by a s*** owner. The "timing" of their appointments is totally irrelevant when this happens.

 

Equally amazing is that every club in the history of the game has appointed 2 poor managers who did a poor job at some stage too .

This is where you go wrong, and others like you. The notion that we are the only club with directors who have done this, is ridiculous and naive in the extreme.

 

The fact, is that as I have told you, in terms of footballing achievement, the vast majority of football boards/owners/directors

are s****, but you and many others still don't realise that we had a good one for those years in spite of their mistakes.

 

Does what has happened since Ashley bought this club still not help your perspective on all of this ?

As for Gullit, I always thought he was the wrong man for the job and didn’t really want Dalgleish to go. He had totally lost the plot so unfortunately it was probably the correct decision to get rid of him when we did. Mourinho should never have been sacked.

 

Of course giving a manager the whole summer to work with their team doesn’t make them a nailed on success, but it certainly helps. The owners didn’t help either Big Sam or Keegan. I’m not sticking up for Ashley. Good managers with a full summer behind them, and backing from their chairman are more likely to be a success.

 

The two appointments were shocking and unforgivable. They weren’t just poor. There are only a handful of worse appointments in Premier League history. Appointing Souness was unforgivable. I wouldn’t claim we were the only club to make dreadful appointments, however two in a row shows a lack of good judgement by the board. Shepherd had lost the plot.

 

Just because Ashley has been worse, doesn’t make Shepherd record post 2004 look any better for me.

 

 

as I said earlier, cherry picking. Don't the previous years count ? Why not, when you look at the overall record ? Football is all about success, and they delivered more than anyone else at the club since the 1950's. Thats the point. When do you think someone else will match it ?

 

Do you really not understand, that even though they made mistakes, they still had more idea than the vast majority of other clubs' owners ?

 

 

 

 

when it comes to this game you are judged by where you are and where you are going.....not where you were 3 or 4 years ago. (been here with the clough analogy haven't we ?)

 

Precisely. We’re second bottom of the Premier League and heading for the Championship! Not because of the our debts but because of the way Mr Ashley has run the club. Five managers in less than two years, an idiotic management structure, and zero investment in the playing squad. It’s a recipe for disaster.

 

NE5’s point is, and always has been, that Mr Ashley’s lack of ambition doesn’t make business sense. That the financial position Shepherd left behind would look like a bed of roses compared to the problems relegation will bring. That Mr Ashley should have put his hand in his pocket (again if you like) and brought in some quality players to strengthen a woefully inadequate squad. He’s had three chances to do it - last January, over the summer and again this January - and gambled on scraping by with the current dross (minus anyone he could sell) each time.

 

It’s looks like NE5 is about to be proved right, but even if by some miracle we stay up he’d still be right. Hall and Shepherd had the right idea, even if the execution went a bit paired shaped towards the end of their tenure. Ashley is about to lose £250m for the want of a £20m investment.

 

Two people can be bad, you do know that don't you. There arent just two options here, one good one bad. In my opinion Ashley has been worse for us than Shepherd, but that doesnt get Shepherd off the hook.

And you do realise Hall and Shepherd did a lot of good work at SJP? If you look at where the club was when they took over and where it was when they left, there can be no doubt significant progress had been made, and we saw a lot of great football along the way. 

 

[Dave]

And you do realise Hall and Shepherd did a lot of good work at SJP? If you look at where the club was when they took over and where it was when they left, there can be no doubt significant progress had been made, and we saw a lot of great football along the way.  

 

I'll be impressed if you can find any examples of anyone denying this outright. The debate is - and always has been - about the BAD THINGS they did, all of which took place before any of us had even heard of Mike Ashley.

[Guest fading star]

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 s****, 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.

Your points are ridiculous. I can't believe you think it was just bad luck that we ended up with two s**** managers in a row. Thats the basis of your arguement when defending Shepherd! Unbelievable! We sacked a manager in Septemeber which is a stupid time of year to do it anyway , and appointed a terrible one as replacement. Can you not see that it wasnt just down to luck that we ended up with Souness in September while Liverpool brought Benitez in and gave him a summer to prepare.

 

so you think sacking Gullit was also a stupid thing to do [yes he walked before he was sacked]. Do you also think Chelsea were wrong to sack Mourinho in mid season ? Quite amazingly, every club in the history of the game has sacked a manager at a "stupid" time.

 

We also brought in Allardyce and he had all summer to prepare, does this mean you think if you give a manager a whole summer to prepare, they are nailed on to be successful or something. Ridiculous. Keegan also had all of last summer, the FACT is both those managers were let down by a s*** owner. The "timing" of their appointments is totally irrelevant when this happens.

 

Equally amazing is that every club in the history of the game has appointed 2 poor managers who did a poor job at some stage too .

This is where you go wrong, and others like you. The notion that we are the only club with directors who have done this, is ridiculous and naive in the extreme.

 

The fact, is that as I have told you, in terms of footballing achievement, the vast majority of football boards/owners/directors

are s****, but you and many others still don't realise that we had a good one for those years in spite of their mistakes.

 

Does what has happened since Ashley bought this club still not help your perspective on all of this ?

As for Gullit, I always thought he was the wrong man for the job and didn’t really want Dalgleish to go. He had totally lost the plot so unfortunately it was probably the correct decision to get rid of him when we did. Mourinho should never have been sacked.

 

Of course giving a manager the whole summer to work with their team doesn’t make them a nailed on success, but it certainly helps. The owners didn’t help either Big Sam or Keegan. I’m not sticking up for Ashley. Good managers with a full summer behind them, and backing from their chairman are more likely to be a success.

 

The two appointments were shocking and unforgivable. They weren’t just poor. There are only a handful of worse appointments in Premier League history. Appointing Souness was unforgivable. I wouldn’t claim we were the only club to make dreadful appointments, however two in a row shows a lack of good judgement by the board. Shepherd had lost the plot.

 

Just because Ashley has been worse, doesn’t make Shepherd record post 2004 look any better for me.

 

 

as I said earlier, cherry picking. Don't the previous years count ? Why not, when you look at the overall record ? Football is all about success, and they delivered more than anyone else at the club since the 1950's. Thats the point. When do you think someone else will match it ?

 

Do you really not understand, that even though they made mistakes, they still had more idea than the vast majority of other clubs' owners ?

 

 

 

 

when it comes to this game you are judged by where you are and where you are going.....not where you were 3 or 4 years ago. (been here with the clough analogy haven't we ?)

 

Precisely. We’re second bottom of the Premier League and heading for the Championship! Not because of the our debts but because of the way Mr Ashley has run the club. Five managers in less than two years, an idiotic management structure, and zero investment in the playing squad. It’s a recipe for disaster.

 

NE5’s point is, and always has been, that Mr Ashley’s lack of ambition doesn’t make business sense. That the financial position Shepherd left behind would look like a bed of roses compared to the problems relegation will bring. That Mr Ashley should have put his hand in his pocket (again if you like) and brought in some quality players to strengthen a woefully inadequate squad. He’s had three chances to do it - last January, over the summer and again this January - and gambled on scraping by with the current dross (minus anyone he could sell) each time.

 

It’s looks like NE5 is about to be proved right, but even if by some miracle we stay up he’d still be right. Hall and Shepherd had the right idea, even if the execution went a bit paired shaped towards the end of their tenure. Ashley is about to lose £250m for the want of a £20m investment.

 

no one's denying that ashleys has made a balls of things. all the majority are pointing out is that we were in the clarts before ashley bought his first share in NUFC.

 

also the debts are quite a large reason for the position we are now in.

We were in the clarts, now we're in deep s***.

 

Do you think Shepherd wanted to sell up?

this had been coming for a while.

 

if he didn't want to sell he wouldn't have.

And then what,  try and wrestle control from a multi billionaire with the single biggest shareholding in the club? 

[madras]

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 s****, 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.

Your points are ridiculous. I can't believe you think it was just bad luck that we ended up with two s**** managers in a row. Thats the basis of your arguement when defending Shepherd! Unbelievable! We sacked a manager in Septemeber which is a stupid time of year to do it anyway , and appointed a terrible one as replacement. Can you not see that it wasnt just down to luck that we ended up with Souness in September while Liverpool brought Benitez in and gave him a summer to prepare.

 

so you think sacking Gullit was also a stupid thing to do [yes he walked before he was sacked]. Do you also think Chelsea were wrong to sack Mourinho in mid season ? Quite amazingly, every club in the history of the game has sacked a manager at a "stupid" time.

 

We also brought in Allardyce and he had all summer to prepare, does this mean you think if you give a manager a whole summer to prepare, they are nailed on to be successful or something. Ridiculous. Keegan also had all of last summer, the FACT is both those managers were let down by a s*** owner. The "timing" of their appointments is totally irrelevant when this happens.

 

Equally amazing is that every club in the history of the game has appointed 2 poor managers who did a poor job at some stage too .

This is where you go wrong, and others like you. The notion that we are the only club with directors who have done this, is ridiculous and naive in the extreme.

 

The fact, is that as I have told you, in terms of footballing achievement, the vast majority of football boards/owners/directors

are s****, but you and many others still don't realise that we had a good one for those years in spite of their mistakes.

 

Does what has happened since Ashley bought this club still not help your perspective on all of this ?

As for Gullit, I always thought he was the wrong man for the job and didn’t really want Dalgleish to go. He had totally lost the plot so unfortunately it was probably the correct decision to get rid of him when we did. Mourinho should never have been sacked.

 

Of course giving a manager the whole summer to work with their team doesn’t make them a nailed on success, but it certainly helps. The owners didn’t help either Big Sam or Keegan. I’m not sticking up for Ashley. Good managers with a full summer behind them, and backing from their chairman are more likely to be a success.

 

The two appointments were shocking and unforgivable. They weren’t just poor. There are only a handful of worse appointments in Premier League history. Appointing Souness was unforgivable. I wouldn’t claim we were the only club to make dreadful appointments, however two in a row shows a lack of good judgement by the board. Shepherd had lost the plot.

 

Just because Ashley has been worse, doesn’t make Shepherd record post 2004 look any better for me.

 

 

as I said earlier, cherry picking. Don't the previous years count ? Why not, when you look at the overall record ? Football is all about success, and they delivered more than anyone else at the club since the 1950's. Thats the point. When do you think someone else will match it ?

 

Do you really not understand, that even though they made mistakes, they still had more idea than the vast majority of other clubs' owners ?

 

 

 

 

when it comes to this game you are judged by where you are and where you are going.....not where you were 3 or 4 years ago. (been here with the clough analogy haven't we ?)

 

Precisely. We’re second bottom of the Premier League and heading for the Championship! Not because of the our debts but because of the way Mr Ashley has run the club. Five managers in less than two years, an idiotic management structure, and zero investment in the playing squad. It’s a recipe for disaster.

 

NE5’s point is, and always has been, that Mr Ashley’s lack of ambition doesn’t make business sense. That the financial position Shepherd left behind would look like a bed of roses compared to the problems relegation will bring. That Mr Ashley should have put his hand in his pocket (again if you like) and brought in some quality players to strengthen a woefully inadequate squad. He’s had three chances to do it - last January, over the summer and again this January - and gambled on scraping by with the current dross (minus anyone he could sell) each time.

 

It’s looks like NE5 is about to be proved right, but even if by some miracle we stay up he’d still be right. Hall and Shepherd had the right idea, even if the execution went a bit paired shaped towards the end of their tenure. Ashley is about to lose £250m for the want of a £20m investment.

 

no one's denying that ashleys has made a balls of things. all the majority are pointing out is that we were in the clarts before ashley bought his first share in NUFC.

 

also the debts are quite a large reason for the position we are now in.

We were in the clarts, now we're in deep s***.

 

Do you think Shepherd wanted to sell up?

this had been coming for a while.

 

if he didn't want to sell he wouldn't have.

And then what,  try and wrestle control from a multi billionaire with the single biggest shareholding in the club? 

so he done what he always done, made a bundle out of NUFC.

 

where do you think the money to compete was going to come from when we are losing 30mill a year as it is ?

[Guest fading star]

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 s****, 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.

Your points are ridiculous. I can't believe you think it was just bad luck that we ended up with two s**** managers in a row. Thats the basis of your arguement when defending Shepherd! Unbelievable! We sacked a manager in Septemeber which is a stupid time of year to do it anyway , and appointed a terrible one as replacement. Can you not see that it wasnt just down to luck that we ended up with Souness in September while Liverpool brought Benitez in and gave him a summer to prepare.

 

so you think sacking Gullit was also a stupid thing to do [yes he walked before he was sacked]. Do you also think Chelsea were wrong to sack Mourinho in mid season ? Quite amazingly, every club in the history of the game has sacked a manager at a "stupid" time.

 

We also brought in Allardyce and he had all summer to prepare, does this mean you think if you give a manager a whole summer to prepare, they are nailed on to be successful or something. Ridiculous. Keegan also had all of last summer, the FACT is both those managers were let down by a s*** owner. The "timing" of their appointments is totally irrelevant when this happens.

 

Equally amazing is that every club in the history of the game has appointed 2 poor managers who did a poor job at some stage too .

This is where you go wrong, and others like you. The notion that we are the only club with directors who have done this, is ridiculous and naive in the extreme.

 

The fact, is that as I have told you, in terms of footballing achievement, the vast majority of football boards/owners/directors

are s****, but you and many others still don't realise that we had a good one for those years in spite of their mistakes.

 

Does what has happened since Ashley bought this club still not help your perspective on all of this ?

As for Gullit, I always thought he was the wrong man for the job and didn’t really want Dalgleish to go. He had totally lost the plot so unfortunately it was probably the correct decision to get rid of him when we did. Mourinho should never have been sacked.

 

Of course giving a manager the whole summer to work with their team doesn’t make them a nailed on success, but it certainly helps. The owners didn’t help either Big Sam or Keegan. I’m not sticking up for Ashley. Good managers with a full summer behind them, and backing from their chairman are more likely to be a success.

 

The two appointments were shocking and unforgivable. They weren’t just poor. There are only a handful of worse appointments in Premier League history. Appointing Souness was unforgivable. I wouldn’t claim we were the only club to make dreadful appointments, however two in a row shows a lack of good judgement by the board. Shepherd had lost the plot.

 

Just because Ashley has been worse, doesn’t make Shepherd record post 2004 look any better for me.

 

 

as I said earlier, cherry picking. Don't the previous years count ? Why not, when you look at the overall record ? Football is all about success, and they delivered more than anyone else at the club since the 1950's. Thats the point. When do you think someone else will match it ?

 

Do you really not understand, that even though they made mistakes, they still had more idea than the vast majority of other clubs' owners ?

 

 

 

 

when it comes to this game you are judged by where you are and where you are going.....not where you were 3 or 4 years ago. (been here with the clough analogy haven't we ?)

 

Precisely. We’re second bottom of the Premier League and heading for the Championship! Not because of the our debts but because of the way Mr Ashley has run the club. Five managers in less than two years, an idiotic management structure, and zero investment in the playing squad. It’s a recipe for disaster.

 

NE5’s point is, and always has been, that Mr Ashley’s lack of ambition doesn’t make business sense. That the financial position Shepherd left behind would look like a bed of roses compared to the problems relegation will bring. That Mr Ashley should have put his hand in his pocket (again if you like) and brought in some quality players to strengthen a woefully inadequate squad. He’s had three chances to do it - last January, over the summer and again this January - and gambled on scraping by with the current dross (minus anyone he could sell) each time.

 

It’s looks like NE5 is about to be proved right, but even if by some miracle we stay up he’d still be right. Hall and Shepherd had the right idea, even if the execution went a bit paired shaped towards the end of their tenure. Ashley is about to lose £250m for the want of a £20m investment.

 

no one's denying that ashleys has made a balls of things. all the majority are pointing out is that we were in the clarts before ashley bought his first share in NUFC.

 

also the debts are quite a large reason for the position we are now in.

We were in the clarts, now we're in deep s***.

 

Do you think Shepherd wanted to sell up?

this had been coming for a while.

 

if he didn't want to sell he wouldn't have.

And then what,  try and wrestle control from a multi billionaire with the single biggest shareholding in the club? 

so he done what he always done, made a bundle out of NUFC.

 

where do you think the money to compete was going to come from when we are losing 30mill a year as it is ?

What else could he have done?

 

[madras]

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 s****, 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.

Your points are ridiculous. I can't believe you think it was just bad luck that we ended up with two s**** managers in a row. Thats the basis of your arguement when defending Shepherd! Unbelievable! We sacked a manager in Septemeber which is a stupid time of year to do it anyway , and appointed a terrible one as replacement. Can you not see that it wasnt just down to luck that we ended up with Souness in September while Liverpool brought Benitez in and gave him a summer to prepare.

 

so you think sacking Gullit was also a stupid thing to do [yes he walked before he was sacked]. Do you also think Chelsea were wrong to sack Mourinho in mid season ? Quite amazingly, every club in the history of the game has sacked a manager at a "stupid" time.

 

We also brought in Allardyce and he had all summer to prepare, does this mean you think if you give a manager a whole summer to prepare, they are nailed on to be successful or something. Ridiculous. Keegan also had all of last summer, the FACT is both those managers were let down by a s*** owner. The "timing" of their appointments is totally irrelevant when this happens.

 

Equally amazing is that every club in the history of the game has appointed 2 poor managers who did a poor job at some stage too .

This is where you go wrong, and others like you. The notion that we are the only club with directors who have done this, is ridiculous and naive in the extreme.

 

The fact, is that as I have told you, in terms of footballing achievement, the vast majority of football boards/owners/directors

are s****, but you and many others still don't realise that we had a good one for those years in spite of their mistakes.

 

Does what has happened since Ashley bought this club still not help your perspective on all of this ?

As for Gullit, I always thought he was the wrong man for the job and didn’t really want Dalgleish to go. He had totally lost the plot so unfortunately it was probably the correct decision to get rid of him when we did. Mourinho should never have been sacked.

 

Of course giving a manager the whole summer to work with their team doesn’t make them a nailed on success, but it certainly helps. The owners didn’t help either Big Sam or Keegan. I’m not sticking up for Ashley. Good managers with a full summer behind them, and backing from their chairman are more likely to be a success.

 

The two appointments were shocking and unforgivable. They weren’t just poor. There are only a handful of worse appointments in Premier League history. Appointing Souness was unforgivable. I wouldn’t claim we were the only club to make dreadful appointments, however two in a row shows a lack of good judgement by the board. Shepherd had lost the plot.

 

Just because Ashley has been worse, doesn’t make Shepherd record post 2004 look any better for me.

 

 

as I said earlier, cherry picking. Don't the previous years count ? Why not, when you look at the overall record ? Football is all about success, and they delivered more than anyone else at the club since the 1950's. Thats the point. When do you think someone else will match it ?

 

Do you really not understand, that even though they made mistakes, they still had more idea than the vast majority of other clubs' owners ?

 

 

 

 

when it comes to this game you are judged by where you are and where you are going.....not where you were 3 or 4 years ago. (been here with the clough analogy haven't we ?)

 

Precisely. We’re second bottom of the Premier League and heading for the Championship! Not because of the our debts but because of the way Mr Ashley has run the club. Five managers in less than two years, an idiotic management structure, and zero investment in the playing squad. It’s a recipe for disaster.

 

NE5’s point is, and always has been, that Mr Ashley’s lack of ambition doesn’t make business sense. That the financial position Shepherd left behind would look like a bed of roses compared to the problems relegation will bring. That Mr Ashley should have put his hand in his pocket (again if you like) and brought in some quality players to strengthen a woefully inadequate squad. He’s had three chances to do it - last January, over the summer and again this January - and gambled on scraping by with the current dross (minus anyone he could sell) each time.

 

It’s looks like NE5 is about to be proved right, but even if by some miracle we stay up he’d still be right. Hall and Shepherd had the right idea, even if the execution went a bit paired shaped towards the end of their tenure. Ashley is about to lose £250m for the want of a £20m investment.

 

no one's denying that ashleys has made a balls of things. all the majority are pointing out is that we were in the clarts before ashley bought his first share in NUFC.

 

also the debts are quite a large reason for the position we are now in.

We were in the clarts, now we're in deep s***.

 

Do you think Shepherd wanted to sell up?

this had been coming for a while.

 

if he didn't want to sell he wouldn't have.

And then what,  try and wrestle control from a multi billionaire with the single biggest shareholding in the club? 

so he done what he always done, made a bundle out of NUFC.

 

where do you think the money to compete was going to come from when we are losing 30mill a year as it is ?

What else could he have done?

 

could have kept them if he'd wanted.

[Guest fading star]

To what end?

[madras]

To what end?

to whatever end he wanted.......his decision to sell,no-one had a gun to his head.

 

i asked you a question aswell, are you going to have a go at answering it ?

[Guest fading star]

To what end?

to whatever end he wanted.......his decision to sell,no-one had a gun to his head.

 

i asked you a question aswell, are you going to have a go at answering it ?

Remind me

[madras]

To what end?

to whatever end he wanted.......his decision to sell,no-one had a gun to his head.

 

i asked you a question aswell, are you going to have a go at answering it ?

Remind me

post 586. just up the page.

[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.

 

It isn't. If you are lucky enough, yes lucky enough, to appoint a good manager and the board is s****, 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.

Your points are ridiculous. I can't believe you think it was just bad luck that we ended up with two s**** managers in a row. Thats the basis of your arguement when defending Shepherd! Unbelievable! We sacked a manager in Septemeber which is a stupid time of year to do it anyway , and appointed a terrible one as replacement. Can you not see that it wasnt just down to luck that we ended up with Souness in September while Liverpool brought Benitez in and gave him a summer to prepare.

 

so you think sacking Gullit was also a stupid thing to do [yes he walked before he was sacked]. Do you also think Chelsea were wrong to sack Mourinho in mid season ? Quite amazingly, every club in the history of the game has sacked a manager at a "stupid" time.

 

We also brought in Allardyce and he had all summer to prepare, does this mean you think if you give a manager a whole summer to prepare, they are nailed on to be successful or something. Ridiculous. Keegan also had all of last summer, the FACT is both those managers were let down by a s*** owner. The "timing" of their appointments is totally irrelevant when this happens.

 

Equally amazing is that every club in the history of the game has appointed 2 poor managers who did a poor job at some stage too .

This is where you go wrong, and others like you. The notion that we are the only club with directors who have done this, is ridiculous and naive in the extreme.

 

The fact, is that as I have told you, in terms of footballing achievement, the vast majority of football boards/owners/directors

are s****, but you and many others still don't realise that we had a good one for those years in spite of their mistakes.

 

Does what has happened since Ashley bought this club still not help your perspective on all of this ?

As for Gullit, I always thought he was the wrong man for the job and didn’t really want Dalgleish to go. He had totally lost the plot so unfortunately it was probably the correct decision to get rid of him when we did. Mourinho should never have been sacked.

 

Of course giving a manager the whole summer to work with their team doesn’t make them a nailed on success, but it certainly helps. The owners didn’t help either Big Sam or Keegan. I’m not sticking up for Ashley. Good managers with a full summer behind them, and backing from their chairman are more likely to be a success.

 

The two appointments were shocking and unforgivable. They weren’t just poor. There are only a handful of worse appointments in Premier League history. Appointing Souness was unforgivable. I wouldn’t claim we were the only club to make dreadful appointments, however two in a row shows a lack of good judgement by the board. Shepherd had lost the plot.

 

Just because Ashley has been worse, doesn’t make Shepherd record post 2004 look any better for me.

 

 

as I said earlier, cherry picking. Don't the previous years count ? Why not, when you look at the overall record ? Football is all about success, and they delivered more than anyone else at the club since the 1950's. Thats the point. When do you think someone else will match it ?

 

Do you really not understand, that even though they made mistakes, they still had more idea than the vast majority of other clubs' owners ?

 

 

 

 

when it comes to this game you are judged by where you are and where you are going.....not where you were 3 or 4 years ago. (been here with the clough analogy haven't we ?)

 

Precisely. We’re second bottom of the Premier League and heading for the Championship! Not because of the our debts but because of the way Mr Ashley has run the club. Five managers in less than two years, an idiotic management structure, and zero investment in the playing squad. It’s a recipe for disaster.

 

NE5’s point is, and always has been, that Mr Ashley’s lack of ambition doesn’t make business sense. That the financial position Shepherd left behind would look like a bed of roses compared to the problems relegation will bring. That Mr Ashley should have put his hand in his pocket (again if you like) and brought in some quality players to strengthen a woefully inadequate squad. He’s had three chances to do it - last January, over the summer and again this January - and gambled on scraping by with the current dross (minus anyone he could sell) each time.

 

It’s looks like NE5 is about to be proved right, but even if by some miracle we stay up he’d still be right. Hall and Shepherd had the right idea, even if the execution went a bit paired shaped towards the end of their tenure. Ashley is about to lose £250m for the want of a £20m investment.

 

Two people can be bad, you do know that don't you. There arent just two options here, one good one bad. In my opinion Ashley has been worse for us than Shepherd, but that doesnt get Shepherd off the hook.

And you do realise Hall and Shepherd did a lot of good work at SJP? If you look at where the club was when they took over and where it was when they left, there can be no doubt significant progress had been made, and we saw a lot of great football along the way.   

This is like speaking to a brick wall. When somebody says "lost the plot", that means that things were going well, THEN mistakes start being made and things turn bad. Bad decisions start being made instead of good ones. Whats so hard to understand about that? Can you, and NE5 not understand that simple concept?

 

This has nothing whatsoever to do with their record in the past, only in the last few seasons in my opinion. Thats why I would say "lost the plot" rather than "Shepherd was bad bad bad".

[oldtype]

Shepherd and friends did a lot of good things for the club in the past but f***ed us up by appointing Souness and flushing money down the toilet, just like Keegan did a lot of good things for the club in the past but f***ed us up by bottling it on September first.

 

Just thought I'd come by and make the debate more "interesting." 

[quayside]

In a really miniscule way the whole Royal Bank of Scotland story has parallels. After Sir Fred Goodwin took control the bank went from being an ordinary, low achievement, high street bank to being a major player in the global arena. Under his stewardship the bank achieved record growth, record profits, record dividends for shareholders and record bonuses for its staff. Ultimately, when everything unravelled, what was left was a mess and, don't misunderstand me here, I am well aware that there are differences in scale - our previous Board did not play a major role in kicking off a world wide recession. Of course Goodwin was in a position of responsibilty and was rewarded for that, he certainly showed ambition but he thought he was better than he was and gambled on some very big decisions - and f*cked up massively. Should we applaud him? Opinion will be split between those who say the buck stops with him and he should be strung up for the shambles that was left under his watch, and those who say that he should be thanked for giving the investors and employees some great times......

 

Ultimately you are judged on what you leave behind and the previous board's greatest legacy is St James Park as it now is. No matter that there was a mortgage on it etc, it sits there as one of the best football grounds in the country and it would not be there if not for the previous board. But the memories of our European football are as meaningless now as Nottingham Forest's European triumphs or Leeds foray into the latter stages of the Champions League. It is a level playing field though and ultimately Ashley will be judged on what he leaves behind.     

[Liam Liam Liam O]

In a really miniscule way the whole Royal Bank of Scotland story has parallels. After Sir Fred Goodwin took control the bank went from being an ordinary, low achievement, high street bank to being a major player in the global arena. Under his stewardship the bank achieved record growth, record profits, record dividends for shareholders and record bonuses for its staff. Ultimately, when everything unravelled, what was left was a mess and, don't misunderstand me here, I am well aware that there are differences in scale - our previous Board did not play a major role in kicking off a world wide recession. Of course Goodwin was in a position of responsibilty and was rewarded for that, he certainly showed ambition but he thought he was better than he was and gambled on some very big decisions - and f*cked up massively. Should we applaud him? Opinion will be split between those who say the buck stops with him and he should be strung up for the shambles that was left under his watch, and those who say that he should be thanked for giving the investors and employees some great times......

 

Ultimately you are judged on what you leave behind and the previous board's greatest legacy is St James Park as it now is. No matter that there was a mortgage on it etc, it sits there as one of the best football grounds in the country and it would not be there if not for the previous board. But the memories of our European football are as meaningless now as Nottingham Forest's European triumphs or Leeds foray into the latter stages of the Champions League. It is a level playing field though and ultimately Ashley will be judged on what he leaves behind.     

 

Excellent post.

[Dave]

In a really miniscule way the whole Royal Bank of Scotland story has parallels. After Sir Fred Goodwin took control the bank went from being an ordinary, low achievement, high street bank to being a major player in the global arena. Under his stewardship the bank achieved record growth, record profits, record dividends for shareholders and record bonuses for its staff. Ultimately, when everything unravelled, what was left was a mess and, don't misunderstand me here, I am well aware that there are differences in scale - our previous Board did not play a major role in kicking off a world wide recession. Of course Goodwin was in a position of responsibilty and was rewarded for that, he certainly showed ambition but he thought he was better than he was and gambled on some very big decisions - and f*cked up massively. Should we applaud him? Opinion will be split between those who say the buck stops with him and he should be strung up for the shambles that was left under his watch, and those who say that he should be thanked for giving the investors and employees some great times......

 

Ultimately you are judged on what you leave behind and the previous board's greatest legacy is St James Park as it now is. No matter that there was a mortgage on it etc, it sits there as one of the best football grounds in the country and it would not be there if not for the previous board. But the memories of our European football are as meaningless now as Nottingham Forest's European triumphs or Leeds foray into the latter stages of the Champions League. It is a level playing field though and ultimately Ashley will be judged on what he leaves behind.     

 

Good post.

[Guest toonlass]

In a really miniscule way the whole Royal Bank of Scotland story has parallels. After Sir Fred Goodwin took control the bank went from being an ordinary, low achievement, high street bank to being a major player in the global arena. Under his stewardship the bank achieved record growth, record profits, record dividends for shareholders and record bonuses for its staff. Ultimately, when everything unravelled, what was left was a mess and, don't misunderstand me here, I am well aware that there are differences in scale - our previous Board did not play a major role in kicking off a world wide recession. Of course Goodwin was in a position of responsibilty and was rewarded for that, he certainly showed ambition but he thought he was better than he was and gambled on some very big decisions - and f*cked up massively. Should we applaud him? Opinion will be split between those who say the buck stops with him and he should be strung up for the shambles that was left under his watch, and those who say that he should be thanked for giving the investors and employees some great times......

 

Ultimately you are judged on what you leave behind and the previous board's greatest legacy is St James Park as it now is. No matter that there was a mortgage on it etc, it sits there as one of the best football grounds in the country and it would not be there if not for the previous board. But the memories of our European football are as meaningless now as Nottingham Forest's European triumphs or Leeds foray into the latter stages of the Champions League. It is a level playing field though and ultimately Ashley will be judged on what he leaves behind.     

 

[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 s****, 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.

Your points are ridiculous. I can't believe you think it was just bad luck that we ended up with two s**** managers in a row. Thats the basis of your arguement when defending Shepherd! Unbelievable! We sacked a manager in Septemeber which is a stupid time of year to do it anyway , and appointed a terrible one as replacement. Can you not see that it wasnt just down to luck that we ended up with Souness in September while Liverpool brought Benitez in and gave him a summer to prepare.

 

so you think sacking Gullit was also a stupid thing to do [yes he walked before he was sacked]. Do you also think Chelsea were wrong to sack Mourinho in mid season ? Quite amazingly, every club in the history of the game has sacked a manager at a "stupid" time.

 

We also brought in Allardyce and he had all summer to prepare, does this mean you think if you give a manager a whole summer to prepare, they are nailed on to be successful or something. Ridiculous. Keegan also had all of last summer, the FACT is both those managers were let down by a s*** owner. The "timing" of their appointments is totally irrelevant when this happens.

 

Equally amazing is that every club in the history of the game has appointed 2 poor managers who did a poor job at some stage too .

This is where you go wrong, and others like you. The notion that we are the only club with directors who have done this, is ridiculous and naive in the extreme.

 

The fact, is that as I have told you, in terms of footballing achievement, the vast majority of football boards/owners/directors

are s****, but you and many others still don't realise that we had a good one for those years in spite of their mistakes.

 

Does what has happened since Ashley bought this club still not help your perspective on all of this ?

As for Gullit, I always thought he was the wrong man for the job and didn’t really want Dalgleish to go. He had totally lost the plot so unfortunately it was probably the correct decision to get rid of him when we did. Mourinho should never have been sacked.

 

Of course giving a manager the whole summer to work with their team doesn’t make them a nailed on success, but it certainly helps. The owners didn’t help either Big Sam or Keegan. I’m not sticking up for Ashley. Good managers with a full summer behind them, and backing from their chairman are more likely to be a success.

 

The two appointments were shocking and unforgivable. They weren’t just poor. There are only a handful of worse appointments in Premier League history. Appointing Souness was unforgivable. I wouldn’t claim we were the only club to make dreadful appointments, however two in a row shows a lack of good judgement by the board. Shepherd had lost the plot.

 

Just because Ashley has been worse, doesn’t make Shepherd record post 2004 look any better for me.

 

 

as I said earlier, cherry picking. Don't the previous years count ? Why not, when you look at the overall record ? Football is all about success, and they delivered more than anyone else at the club since the 1950's. Thats the point. When do you think someone else will match it ?

 

Do you really not understand, that even though they made mistakes, they still had more idea than the vast majority of other clubs' owners ?

 

 

 

 

when it comes to this game you are judged by where you are and where you are going.....not where you were 3 or 4 years ago. (been here with the clough analogy haven't we ?)

 

Precisely. We’re second bottom of the Premier League and heading for the Championship! Not because of the our debts but because of the way Mr Ashley has run the club. Five managers in less than two years, an idiotic management structure, and zero investment in the playing squad. It’s a recipe for disaster.

 

NE5’s point is, and always has been, that Mr Ashley’s lack of ambition doesn’t make business sense. That the financial position Shepherd left behind would look like a bed of roses compared to the problems relegation will bring. That Mr Ashley should have put his hand in his pocket (again if you like) and brought in some quality players to strengthen a woefully inadequate squad. He’s had three chances to do it - last January, over the summer and again this January - and gambled on scraping by with the current dross (minus anyone he could sell) each time.

 

It’s looks like NE5 is about to be proved right, but even if by some miracle we stay up he’d still be right. Hall and Shepherd had the right idea, even if the execution went a bit paired shaped towards the end of their tenure. Ashley is about to lose £250m for the want of a £20m investment.

 

Two people can be bad, you do know that don't you. There arent just two options here, one good one bad. In my opinion Ashley has been worse for us than Shepherd, but that doesnt get Shepherd off the hook.

And you do realise Hall and Shepherd did a lot of good work at SJP? If you look at where the club was when they took over and where it was when they left, there can be no doubt significant progress had been made, and we saw a lot of great football along the way.   

This is like speaking to a brick wall. When somebody says "lost the plot", that means that things were going well, THEN mistakes start being made and things turn bad. Bad decisions start being made instead of good ones. Whats so hard to understand about that? Can you, and NE5 not understand that simple concept?

 

This has nothing whatsoever to do with their record in the past, only in the last few seasons in my opinion. Thats why I would say "lost the plot" rather than "Shepherd was bad bad bad".

 

So. Using the "clough analogy" that myself and madras spoke of, you completely ignore his successes because he left them relegated ?

 

And the fact still remains, its also about judging the best people who understand how to be successful, in spite of any mistakes. How long do you think it will take someone to match those european qualifications that the Halls and Shepherd did, or are you saying that the next owners will be better than the Halls and Shepherd if they spend 10 years or so at the club, don't qualify for europe but leave it 2 places higher in the league than Mike Ashley ?