Financial meltdown?

[NE5]

Hmm.....no reply. Always puzzles me this, that I give out facts and people think its a wind up ?

 

actually you don't, you give one fact repeated ad nauseam - the rest is your opinion tarted up as fact through the smoke and mirror act of condescension

 

between yourself & JJ7 there were facts and opinions, i'll enlighten you:

 

FS was a big part [fnar] of the European qualifications (facts) but he also ran out of ideas (strong conjecture/opinion) and the club was nearly bankrupt/in a dire financial situation (fact)

 

what's so hard about it for you?  you quote the Euro qualifications and JJ7 says: "Yep, then he lost the plot, made too many mistakes and nearly bankrupted the club"

 

he's not contradicting you, you can surely understand that?  he's referring to 2 different points in time man

 

then you reply and tell him to repost his rubbish in 5 years!!!  you remind me of billy pilgrim dude, totally shot to f*** through all the time travelling you've done so you can't work out simple linear facts and events anymore

Good points. Im not biting here, honestly as its just a general point, but there are very few people in business or politics or whatever who are always good. Most people usually start to fail and make mistakes in the end. Look at Hitler who performed miricles at the start, Thatcher, Brooks Mileson, Peter Ridsdale, Doug Ellis etc..... Even if Freddy had won us the league for three seasons between 1997 and 2000, you can't just stick with them when they continue to make mistake after mistake.

 

absolutely agree, and it's a balance thing

 

we'd tipped the scales under FS, and as a PLC in my opinion, but we got very unlucky with who bought us out - as has been said countless times the ashley period being an abject failure to date does not validate the later years of FS & the PLC

 

at the end of the day, it depends how you look at it.

 

Football is a risky business. A lot of people say - and not just on here - that if you aren't in europe, you are s***. Construed : what they mean is they have known nothing less than regularly playing in europe, so don't listen to people like me who try to tell them that such things aren't automatic and only the good clubs with good boards qualify regularly for europe. You hit the nail slightly on the head when you say we were "unlucky with who bought us out"........having seen the club when we were REALLY s**** [far more than the supposed "s****" of the recent past, until now since Ashley came in] I see it differently, I see the vast majority of the clubs in the top 2 leagues as being s****, and I say we "got lucky" when we had good directors. It might be quite a while until we "get lucky" again ....... and a lot of people will be sitting around in 10 years time and looking back at the Halls and Shepherd and realise it, but I obviously hope not bearing in mind my age.

 

This is all I've said from day 1 by the way. At least some people - since ashley - have begun to understand.

 

 

 

 

wrongish, it also depends on why you look at it in a certain way. for example why are you determined,against all reason, to try and make out that we weren't in the s*** at the end of fred's reign despite all the evidence saying we were ?

 

why are you and others like you, against all reason, determined to try and make out that the Halls and Shepherd weren't the best owners we have had at the club for 50 years and it will very difficult to replace them with better ?

 

And - accept that Mike ashley is taking the club downwards, among the also rans, like the vast majority of other football club owners instead of trying to get among the other top clubs which is where we should be and where we spent our time under the Halls and Shepherd.

 

 

 

People do accept that Mike Ashley is taking the club downwards.

 

However, why do you not accept that when the Halls and Shepherd sold the club to Ashley we were already started on the journey downwards. We may have had years and years competing with the top clubs but the bubble had already burst when Ashley bought us, and this was after others had looked at the books and walked away laughing at the financial mess we were in.

 

 

because they ticked the 2 biggest boxes. They had the ambition to succeed, and they backed their appointed managers

 

That is how we qualfied for europe more than any club bar 4 during their time running the club. I hope you enjoyed it, because we might have s*** directors for years, or decades, before we get good ones again.

 

 

 

Same old hyperbole. So you must have missed the grumblings of fans who were not satisfied at the s*** that we were turning out week in week out. Were you at the Sheffield United game for instance?

 

Of course I enjoyed the european games, that goes without saying. But that does not excuse Hall and Shepherd from starting us down the road that we are now on. Things had already turned sour before Mike Ashley came along. He has failed to turn that around and that should not be forgotten either, but you cannot say that Hall and Shepherd are blameless in this.

 

football, like life, is all ups and downs. Fortunately, we had a board who delivered more ups than most clubs will ever see. Because they ticked the most important boxes, unlike 80-90% of clubs and their own predecessors and their first successor too, it will be very difficult to find better. Could take decades in fact. Shame they were so s*** it takes so long to find someone better isn't it ?

 

 

Of course football is about ups and downs, but no decent chairman should let the downs lead a club towards nearly being bankrupt. Leeds had massive ups under Ridsdale, but look at them now because of what happened back then. Theres ambition, then theres stupidity.

 

I agree that Shepherds ambition was great when we were qualifying for the Champions League under Robson. But Shepherd was stupid in the timing of his sacking of Robson, then his next 2 appointments. A chairmans main job is to pick a manager, and he failed not once, but TWICE in a row. Throwing money at a s**** manager, who is unlikely to get you a return on your investment (i.e. by qualifying for the Champions League) is pure stupidity.

 

NE5, you look at things too simplistically and ignore what others are saying. You're either on the wind up, or you just love an arguement and don't actually believe what you're saying.

 

It was pretty clear Shepherd wanted to cut down on the borrowing by the appointment of Allardyce , and this bankruptcy  talk is all speculation - it didnt happen so how can you presume it was going to happen.

 

Shepherd could clearly hold back on spending and be prudent ie: summer of Bowyer and Woodgate sale, yet the ironic thing is we didn't spend in that summer and Shepherd got criticized beyond belief for lack of ambition.  When really he was being cautious as we weren't guaranteed Champions League football that year.  Yet now in hindsight have forum members saying 'spent too much!', 'out of control!', 'ridsdale!'.  It's all a bit ridiculous.

 

spot on, and the bold bit is obvious.

 

 

[J7]

Hmm.....no reply. Always puzzles me this, that I give out facts and people think its a wind up ?

 

actually you don't, you give one fact repeated ad nauseam - the rest is your opinion tarted up as fact through the smoke and mirror act of condescension

 

between yourself & JJ7 there were facts and opinions, i'll enlighten you:

 

FS was a big part [fnar] of the European qualifications (facts) but he also ran out of ideas (strong conjecture/opinion) and the club was nearly bankrupt/in a dire financial situation (fact)

 

what's so hard about it for you?  you quote the Euro qualifications and JJ7 says: "Yep, then he lost the plot, made too many mistakes and nearly bankrupted the club"

 

he's not contradicting you, you can surely understand that?  he's referring to 2 different points in time man

 

then you reply and tell him to repost his rubbish in 5 years!!!  you remind me of billy pilgrim dude, totally shot to f*** through all the time travelling you've done so you can't work out simple linear facts and events anymore

Good points. Im not biting here, honestly as its just a general point, but there are very few people in business or politics or whatever who are always good. Most people usually start to fail and make mistakes in the end. Look at Hitler who performed miricles at the start, Thatcher, Brooks Mileson, Peter Ridsdale, Doug Ellis etc..... Even if Freddy had won us the league for three seasons between 1997 and 2000, you can't just stick with them when they continue to make mistake after mistake.

 

absolutely agree, and it's a balance thing

 

we'd tipped the scales under FS, and as a PLC in my opinion, but we got very unlucky with who bought us out - as has been said countless times the ashley period being an abject failure to date does not validate the later years of FS & the PLC

 

at the end of the day, it depends how you look at it.

 

Football is a risky business. A lot of people say - and not just on here - that if you aren't in europe, you are s***. Construed : what they mean is they have known nothing less than regularly playing in europe, so don't listen to people like me who try to tell them that such things aren't automatic and only the good clubs with good boards qualify regularly for europe. You hit the nail slightly on the head when you say we were "unlucky with who bought us out"........having seen the club when we were REALLY s**** [far more than the supposed "s****" of the recent past, until now since Ashley came in] I see it differently, I see the vast majority of the clubs in the top 2 leagues as being s****, and I say we "got lucky" when we had good directors. It might be quite a while until we "get lucky" again ....... and a lot of people will be sitting around in 10 years time and looking back at the Halls and Shepherd and realise it, but I obviously hope not bearing in mind my age.

 

This is all I've said from day 1 by the way. At least some people - since ashley - have begun to understand.

 

 

 

 

wrongish, it also depends on why you look at it in a certain way. for example why are you determined,against all reason, to try and make out that we weren't in the s*** at the end of fred's reign despite all the evidence saying we were ?

 

why are you and others like you, against all reason, determined to try and make out that the Halls and Shepherd weren't the best owners we have had at the club for 50 years and it will very difficult to replace them with better ?

 

And - accept that Mike ashley is taking the club downwards, among the also rans, like the vast majority of other football club owners instead of trying to get among the other top clubs which is where we should be and where we spent our time under the Halls and Shepherd.

 

 

 

People do accept that Mike Ashley is taking the club downwards.

 

However, why do you not accept that when the Halls and Shepherd sold the club to Ashley we were already started on the journey downwards. We may have had years and years competing with the top clubs but the bubble had already burst when Ashley bought us, and this was after others had looked at the books and walked away laughing at the financial mess we were in.

 

 

because they ticked the 2 biggest boxes. They had the ambition to succeed, and they backed their appointed managers

 

That is how we qualfied for europe more than any club bar 4 during their time running the club. I hope you enjoyed it, because we might have s*** directors for years, or decades, before we get good ones again.

 

 

 

Same old hyperbole. So you must have missed the grumblings of fans who were not satisfied at the s*** that we were turning out week in week out. Were you at the Sheffield United game for instance?

 

Of course I enjoyed the european games, that goes without saying. But that does not excuse Hall and Shepherd from starting us down the road that we are now on. Things had already turned sour before Mike Ashley came along. He has failed to turn that around and that should not be forgotten either, but you cannot say that Hall and Shepherd are blameless in this.

 

football, like life, is all ups and downs. Fortunately, we had a board who delivered more ups than most clubs will ever see. Because they ticked the most important boxes, unlike 80-90% of clubs and their own predecessors and their first successor too, it will be very difficult to find better. Could take decades in fact. Shame they were so s*** it takes so long to find someone better isn't it ?

 

 

Of course football is about ups and downs, but no decent chairman should let the downs lead a club towards nearly being bankrupt. Leeds had massive ups under Ridsdale, but look at them now because of what happened back then. Theres ambition, then theres stupidity.

 

I agree that Shepherds ambition was great when we were qualifying for the Champions League under Robson. But Shepherd was stupid in the timing of his sacking of Robson, then his next 2 appointments. A chairmans main job is to pick a manager, and he failed not once, but TWICE in a row. Throwing money at a s**** manager, who is unlikely to get you a return on your investment (i.e. by qualifying for the Champions League) is pure stupidity.

 

NE5, you look at things too simplistically and ignore what others are saying. You're either on the wind up, or you just love an arguement and don't actually believe what you're saying.

 

I believe what I'm saying alright. I always have, and whats more, all the things I have said in the past which I got flak for, are all vindicated because they turned out to be right.

 

Just to clarify, do you think appointing Souness and giving him £50 million to spend was the right thing to do?

 

Can you not see that appointing Souness was unambitious, where as giving him £50 million was very ambitious? These things don't match as Souness was never going to take us to the Champions League. The Champions League is where we would need to be if we were to see a return in the investment. Its bad management.

[Dave]

Are we to believe Allardyce would have done better than taking us to the brink of relegation with even less money?

 

Oh, and mid-table mediocrity is mid-table mediocrity. Neither is good enough for a club of this stature. But I'd rather be mid-table with healthy finances than not, purely because it means a push towards higher spots SHOULD be more achievable.

[J7]

Hmm.....no reply. Always puzzles me this, that I give out facts and people think its a wind up ?

 

actually you don't, you give one fact repeated ad nauseam - the rest is your opinion tarted up as fact through the smoke and mirror act of condescension

 

between yourself & JJ7 there were facts and opinions, i'll enlighten you:

 

FS was a big part [fnar] of the European qualifications (facts) but he also ran out of ideas (strong conjecture/opinion) and the club was nearly bankrupt/in a dire financial situation (fact)

 

what's so hard about it for you?  you quote the Euro qualifications and JJ7 says: "Yep, then he lost the plot, made too many mistakes and nearly bankrupted the club"

 

he's not contradicting you, you can surely understand that?  he's referring to 2 different points in time man

 

then you reply and tell him to repost his rubbish in 5 years!!!  you remind me of billy pilgrim dude, totally shot to f*** through all the time travelling you've done so you can't work out simple linear facts and events anymore

Good points. Im not biting here, honestly as its just a general point, but there are very few people in business or politics or whatever who are always good. Most people usually start to fail and make mistakes in the end. Look at Hitler who performed miricles at the start, Thatcher, Brooks Mileson, Peter Ridsdale, Doug Ellis etc..... Even if Freddy had won us the league for three seasons between 1997 and 2000, you can't just stick with them when they continue to make mistake after mistake.

 

absolutely agree, and it's a balance thing

 

we'd tipped the scales under FS, and as a PLC in my opinion, but we got very unlucky with who bought us out - as has been said countless times the ashley period being an abject failure to date does not validate the later years of FS & the PLC

 

at the end of the day, it depends how you look at it.

 

Football is a risky business. A lot of people say - and not just on here - that if you aren't in europe, you are s***. Construed : what they mean is they have known nothing less than regularly playing in europe, so don't listen to people like me who try to tell them that such things aren't automatic and only the good clubs with good boards qualify regularly for europe. You hit the nail slightly on the head when you say we were "unlucky with who bought us out"........having seen the club when we were REALLY s**** [far more than the supposed "s****" of the recent past, until now since Ashley came in] I see it differently, I see the vast majority of the clubs in the top 2 leagues as being s****, and I say we "got lucky" when we had good directors. It might be quite a while until we "get lucky" again ....... and a lot of people will be sitting around in 10 years time and looking back at the Halls and Shepherd and realise it, but I obviously hope not bearing in mind my age.

 

This is all I've said from day 1 by the way. At least some people - since ashley - have begun to understand.

 

 

 

 

wrongish, it also depends on why you look at it in a certain way. for example why are you determined,against all reason, to try and make out that we weren't in the s*** at the end of fred's reign despite all the evidence saying we were ?

 

why are you and others like you, against all reason, determined to try and make out that the Halls and Shepherd weren't the best owners we have had at the club for 50 years and it will very difficult to replace them with better ?

 

And - accept that Mike ashley is taking the club downwards, among the also rans, like the vast majority of other football club owners instead of trying to get among the other top clubs which is where we should be and where we spent our time under the Halls and Shepherd.

 

 

 

People do accept that Mike Ashley is taking the club downwards.

 

However, why do you not accept that when the Halls and Shepherd sold the club to Ashley we were already started on the journey downwards. We may have had years and years competing with the top clubs but the bubble had already burst when Ashley bought us, and this was after others had looked at the books and walked away laughing at the financial mess we were in.

 

 

because they ticked the 2 biggest boxes. They had the ambition to succeed, and they backed their appointed managers

 

That is how we qualfied for europe more than any club bar 4 during their time running the club. I hope you enjoyed it, because we might have s*** directors for years, or decades, before we get good ones again.

 

 

 

Same old hyperbole. So you must have missed the grumblings of fans who were not satisfied at the s*** that we were turning out week in week out. Were you at the Sheffield United game for instance?

 

Of course I enjoyed the european games, that goes without saying. But that does not excuse Hall and Shepherd from starting us down the road that we are now on. Things had already turned sour before Mike Ashley came along. He has failed to turn that around and that should not be forgotten either, but you cannot say that Hall and Shepherd are blameless in this.

 

football, like life, is all ups and downs. Fortunately, we had a board who delivered more ups than most clubs will ever see. Because they ticked the most important boxes, unlike 80-90% of clubs and their own predecessors and their first successor too, it will be very difficult to find better. Could take decades in fact. Shame they were so s*** it takes so long to find someone better isn't it ?

 

 

Of course football is about ups and downs, but no decent chairman should let the downs lead a club towards nearly being bankrupt. Leeds had massive ups under Ridsdale, but look at them now because of what happened back then. Theres ambition, then theres stupidity.

 

I agree that Shepherds ambition was great when we were qualifying for the Champions League under Robson. But Shepherd was stupid in the timing of his sacking of Robson, then his next 2 appointments. A chairmans main job is to pick a manager, and he failed not once, but TWICE in a row. Throwing money at a s**** manager, who is unlikely to get you a return on your investment (i.e. by qualifying for the Champions League) is pure stupidity.

 

NE5, you look at things too simplistically and ignore what others are saying. You're either on the wind up, or you just love an arguement and don't actually believe what you're saying.

 

It was pretty clear Shepherd wanted to cut down on the borrowing by the appointment of Allardyce, and this bankruptcy  talk is all speculation - it didnt happen so how can you presume it was going to happen.

 

Shepherd could clearly hold back on spending and be prudent ie: summer of Bowyer and Woodgate sale, yet the ironic thing is we didn't spend in that summer and Shepherd got criticized beyond belief for lack of ambition.  When really he was being cautious as we weren't guaranteed Champions League football that year.  Yet now in hindsight have forum members saying 'spent too much!', 'out of control!', 'ridsdale!'.  It's all a bit ridiculous.

Its not really ridiculous. Even if we accept that we weren't going bankrupt and Shepherd was tightening the purse strings, then I still consider it bad management giving Robson next to nothing to spend one summer, then overloading Souness with cash another summer. He appointed two terrible managers then gambled at the wrong time. Had he have appointed someone good and not Souness, his gamble may have paid off. It was terrible management to appoint Souness then Roeder though.

[Guest getcarter]

I - and I'm certain madras and pretty much everyone else - totally accept Shepherd et al gave us the best years of the last fifty, and they ticked several very important boxes. I also accept that Ashley isn't what I hoped he would be, not by a long stretch.

 

 

 

can we just end it there? surely that sums the whole debate up?

 

By editing out the second part though you're omitting the hypocrisy. I'm more than willing to admit things are s*** at the minute. NE5 is completely unwilling to admit anything but instead prefers to point-score. Over and over and over again.

 

Fair comment though, I'm not going to persue it any more in this thread. I guess the answer (or not) to the question above will tell its own story.

 

no, I don't think the performance was average at all in the bigger scheme of things, if it WAS, then it was only average by their own higher standards as put against the club they took over, and the club we are now as we slide downwards with ever quickening speed.

 

And, I've said this before. Give me a club who takes a risk and has a go rather than one who settles for safety.

 

Now. I'll ask YOU 2 things in relation to the above. Do you - and anyone else - now consider that if Mike Ashley ran this club sitting in mid table - would you still consider it to be mediocre, or successful ?

 

And - will you now settle for the next decade of financial stability while looking upwards at teams playing in europe knowing we were not going to risk our new found stability to try and join them ?

 

Lastly.....once again Dave you have totally ignored the complete childishness of someone else when responding to me, in this case it was jimmymag. You DO see his comments as being childish I take it ? They certainly weren't of an intelligent or mature nature, were they ?

 

These comments are my genuine responses to what you asked, as they always have been.

 

 

 

Surely that is the crux of the argument. Fat Freddy and Hall took the risk with someone else's money and paid themselves handsomely to do it. Unfortunately, when you gamble, you can lose as well as win, and the game was effectively up before they got out. They took the risk and failed.  Ashley soon saw that it was going to cost him the earth and decided he would be better off out of it. Sadly, there are no mug buyers in the current economic climate, and so the decline just keeps going on unarrested.

[NE5]

Hmm.....no reply. Always puzzles me this, that I give out facts and people think its a wind up ?

 

actually you don't, you give one fact repeated ad nauseam - the rest is your opinion tarted up as fact through the smoke and mirror act of condescension

 

between yourself & JJ7 there were facts and opinions, i'll enlighten you:

 

FS was a big part [fnar] of the European qualifications (facts) but he also ran out of ideas (strong conjecture/opinion) and the club was nearly bankrupt/in a dire financial situation (fact)

 

what's so hard about it for you?  you quote the Euro qualifications and JJ7 says: "Yep, then he lost the plot, made too many mistakes and nearly bankrupted the club"

 

he's not contradicting you, you can surely understand that?  he's referring to 2 different points in time man

 

then you reply and tell him to repost his rubbish in 5 years!!!  you remind me of billy pilgrim dude, totally shot to f*** through all the time travelling you've done so you can't work out simple linear facts and events anymore

Good points. Im not biting here, honestly as its just a general point, but there are very few people in business or politics or whatever who are always good. Most people usually start to fail and make mistakes in the end. Look at Hitler who performed miricles at the start, Thatcher, Brooks Mileson, Peter Ridsdale, Doug Ellis etc..... Even if Freddy had won us the league for three seasons between 1997 and 2000, you can't just stick with them when they continue to make mistake after mistake.

 

absolutely agree, and it's a balance thing

 

we'd tipped the scales under FS, and as a PLC in my opinion, but we got very unlucky with who bought us out - as has been said countless times the ashley period being an abject failure to date does not validate the later years of FS & the PLC

 

at the end of the day, it depends how you look at it.

 

Football is a risky business. A lot of people say - and not just on here - that if you aren't in europe, you are s***. Construed : what they mean is they have known nothing less than regularly playing in europe, so don't listen to people like me who try to tell them that such things aren't automatic and only the good clubs with good boards qualify regularly for europe. You hit the nail slightly on the head when you say we were "unlucky with who bought us out"........having seen the club when we were REALLY s**** [far more than the supposed "s****" of the recent past, until now since Ashley came in] I see it differently, I see the vast majority of the clubs in the top 2 leagues as being s****, and I say we "got lucky" when we had good directors. It might be quite a while until we "get lucky" again ....... and a lot of people will be sitting around in 10 years time and looking back at the Halls and Shepherd and realise it, but I obviously hope not bearing in mind my age.

 

This is all I've said from day 1 by the way. At least some people - since ashley - have begun to understand.

 

 

 

 

wrongish, it also depends on why you look at it in a certain way. for example why are you determined,against all reason, to try and make out that we weren't in the s*** at the end of fred's reign despite all the evidence saying we were ?

 

why are you and others like you, against all reason, determined to try and make out that the Halls and Shepherd weren't the best owners we have had at the club for 50 years and it will very difficult to replace them with better ?

 

And - accept that Mike ashley is taking the club downwards, among the also rans, like the vast majority of other football club owners instead of trying to get among the other top clubs which is where we should be and where we spent our time under the Halls and Shepherd.

 

 

 

People do accept that Mike Ashley is taking the club downwards.

 

However, why do you not accept that when the Halls and Shepherd sold the club to Ashley we were already started on the journey downwards. We may have had years and years competing with the top clubs but the bubble had already burst when Ashley bought us, and this was after others had looked at the books and walked away laughing at the financial mess we were in.

 

 

because they ticked the 2 biggest boxes. They had the ambition to succeed, and they backed their appointed managers

 

That is how we qualfied for europe more than any club bar 4 during their time running the club. I hope you enjoyed it, because we might have s*** directors for years, or decades, before we get good ones again.

 

 

 

Same old hyperbole. So you must have missed the grumblings of fans who were not satisfied at the s*** that we were turning out week in week out. Were you at the Sheffield United game for instance?

 

Of course I enjoyed the european games, that goes without saying. But that does not excuse Hall and Shepherd from starting us down the road that we are now on. Things had already turned sour before Mike Ashley came along. He has failed to turn that around and that should not be forgotten either, but you cannot say that Hall and Shepherd are blameless in this.

 

football, like life, is all ups and downs. Fortunately, we had a board who delivered more ups than most clubs will ever see. Because they ticked the most important boxes, unlike 80-90% of clubs and their own predecessors and their first successor too, it will be very difficult to find better. Could take decades in fact. Shame they were so s*** it takes so long to find someone better isn't it ?

 

 

Of course football is about ups and downs, but no decent chairman should let the downs lead a club towards nearly being bankrupt. Leeds had massive ups under Ridsdale, but look at them now because of what happened back then. Theres ambition, then theres stupidity.

 

I agree that Shepherds ambition was great when we were qualifying for the Champions League under Robson. But Shepherd was stupid in the timing of his sacking of Robson, then his next 2 appointments. A chairmans main job is to pick a manager, and he failed not once, but TWICE in a row. Throwing money at a s**** manager, who is unlikely to get you a return on your investment (i.e. by qualifying for the Champions League) is pure stupidity.

 

NE5, you look at things too simplistically and ignore what others are saying. You're either on the wind up, or you just love an arguement and don't actually believe what you're saying.

 

I believe what I'm saying alright. I always have, and whats more, all the things I have said in the past which I got flak for, are all vindicated because they turned out to be right.

 

Just to clarify, do you think appointing Souness and giving him £50 million to spend was the right thing to do?

 

Can you not see that appointing Souness was unambitious, where as giving him £50 million was very ambitious? These things don't match as Souness was never going to take us to the Champions League. The Champions League is where we would need to be if we were to see a return in the investment. Its bad management.

 

I don't really know how many times this has to be said. I didn't appoint Souness. Neither did you .

 

They appointed him, and they backed their manager.

 

Don't you understand this ?

 

BTW, you should really be asking this sort of question to the numerous people who completely supported the throwing of the money at him, and his sales, at the time, who are now complaining about the consequences, instead of someone like me who said that we shouldn't be doing it, at the time.

 

 

[NE5]

I - and I'm certain madras and pretty much everyone else - totally accept Shepherd et al gave us the best years of the last fifty, and they ticked several very important boxes. I also accept that Ashley isn't what I hoped he would be, not by a long stretch.

 

 

 

can we just end it there? surely that sums the whole debate up?

 

By editing out the second part though you're omitting the hypocrisy. I'm more than willing to admit things are s*** at the minute. NE5 is completely unwilling to admit anything but instead prefers to point-score. Over and over and over again.

 

Fair comment though, I'm not going to persue it any more in this thread. I guess the answer (or not) to the question above will tell its own story.

 

no, I don't think the performance was average at all in the bigger scheme of things, if it WAS, then it was only average by their own higher standards as put against the club they took over, and the club we are now as we slide downwards with ever quickening speed.

 

And, I've said this before. Give me a club who takes a risk and has a go rather than one who settles for safety.

 

Now. I'll ask YOU 2 things in relation to the above. Do you - and anyone else - now consider that if Mike Ashley ran this club sitting in mid table - would you still consider it to be mediocre, or successful ?

 

And - will you now settle for the next decade of financial stability while looking upwards at teams playing in europe knowing we were not going to risk our new found stability to try and join them ?

 

Lastly.....once again Dave you have totally ignored the complete childishness of someone else when responding to me, in this case it was jimmymag. You DO see his comments as being childish I take it ? They certainly weren't of an intelligent or mature nature, were they ?

 

These comments are my genuine responses to what you asked, as they always have been.

 

 

 

Surely that is the crux of the argument. Fat Freddy and Hall took the risk with someone else's money and paid themselves handsomely to do it. Unfortunately, when you gamble, you can lose as well as win, and the game was effectively up before they got out. They took the risk and failed.  Ashley soon saw that it was going to cost him the earth and decided he would be better off out of it. Sadly, there are no mug buyers in the current economic climate, and so the decline just keeps going on unarrested.

 

eh ? What are you talking about. It was the clubs' money

 

 

[Unbelievable]

This 50 million that keeps popping up, would somebody care to explain where it comes from based on incoming and outgoing transfer fees? As far as I can see we had sold Woodgate before Souness came in, and we sold Jenas during that period, which makes the actual figure invested closer to 30 million over the space of 3 transfer windows, which I imagine is not too disimilar to other top 6 teams at that time. We had to invest to keep up with the competition. We invested badly, unfortunately, but I don't understand why the investment itself is deserving of criticism.. How else do people expect to get (back) in the top half of the table?

[Guest getcarter]

I - and I'm certain madras and pretty much everyone else - totally accept Shepherd et al gave us the best years of the last fifty, and they ticked several very important boxes. I also accept that Ashley isn't what I hoped he would be, not by a long stretch.

 

 

 

can we just end it there? surely that sums the whole debate up?

 

By editing out the second part though you're omitting the hypocrisy. I'm more than willing to admit things are s*** at the minute. NE5 is completely unwilling to admit anything but instead prefers to point-score. Over and over and over again.

 

Fair comment though, I'm not going to persue it any more in this thread. I guess the answer (or not) to the question above will tell its own story.

 

no, I don't think the performance was average at all in the bigger scheme of things, if it WAS, then it was only average by their own higher standards as put against the club they took over, and the club we are now as we slide downwards with ever quickening speed.

 

And, I've said this before. Give me a club who takes a risk and has a go rather than one who settles for safety.

 

Now. I'll ask YOU 2 things in relation to the above. Do you - and anyone else - now consider that if Mike Ashley ran this club sitting in mid table - would you still consider it to be mediocre, or successful ?

 

And - will you now settle for the next decade of financial stability while looking upwards at teams playing in europe knowing we were not going to risk our new found stability to try and join them ?

 

Lastly.....once again Dave you have totally ignored the complete childishness of someone else when responding to me, in this case it was jimmymag. You DO see his comments as being childish I take it ? They certainly weren't of an intelligent or mature nature, were they ?

 

These comments are my genuine responses to what you asked, as they always have been.

 

 

 

Surely that is the crux of the argument. Fat Freddy and Hall took the risk with someone else's money and paid themselves handsomely to do it. Unfortunately, when you gamble, you can lose as well as win, and the game was effectively up before they got out. They took the risk and failed.  Ashley soon saw that it was going to cost him the earth and decided he would be better off out of it. Sadly, there are no mug buyers in the current economic climate, and so the decline just keeps going on unarrested.

 

eh ? What are you talking about. It was the clubs' money

 

 

 

If it was the clubs money, then why the hell did Ashley have to stick a shedload of his own cash in to stabilize the club.

[dcmk]

This 50 million that keeps popping up, would somebody care to explain where it comes from based on incoming and outgoing transfer fees? As far as I can see we had sold Woodgate before Souness came in, and we sold Jenas during that period, which makes the actual figure invested closer to 30 million over the space of 3 transfer windows, which I imagine is not too disimilar to other top 6 teams at that time. We had to invest to keep up with the competition. We invested badly, unfortunately, but I don't understand why the investment itself is deserving of criticism.. How else do people expect to get (back) in the top half of the table?

 

Yup and 17 million of that was to be the long term answer to Shearer, which hasn't worked out.  Can't fault the idea though ..well im sure some here can.

[dcmk]

I - and I'm certain madras and pretty much everyone else - totally accept Shepherd et al gave us the best years of the last fifty, and they ticked several very important boxes. I also accept that Ashley isn't what I hoped he would be, not by a long stretch.

 

 

 

can we just end it there? surely that sums the whole debate up?

 

By editing out the second part though you're omitting the hypocrisy. I'm more than willing to admit things are s*** at the minute. NE5 is completely unwilling to admit anything but instead prefers to point-score. Over and over and over again.

 

Fair comment though, I'm not going to persue it any more in this thread. I guess the answer (or not) to the question above will tell its own story.

 

no, I don't think the performance was average at all in the bigger scheme of things, if it WAS, then it was only average by their own higher standards as put against the club they took over, and the club we are now as we slide downwards with ever quickening speed.

 

And, I've said this before. Give me a club who takes a risk and has a go rather than one who settles for safety.

 

Now. I'll ask YOU 2 things in relation to the above. Do you - and anyone else - now consider that if Mike Ashley ran this club sitting in mid table - would you still consider it to be mediocre, or successful ?

 

And - will you now settle for the next decade of financial stability while looking upwards at teams playing in europe knowing we were not going to risk our new found stability to try and join them ?

 

Lastly.....once again Dave you have totally ignored the complete childishness of someone else when responding to me, in this case it was jimmymag. You DO see his comments as being childish I take it ? They certainly weren't of an intelligent or mature nature, were they ?

 

These comments are my genuine responses to what you asked, as they always have been.

 

 

 

Surely that is the crux of the argument. Fat Freddy and Hall took the risk with someone else's money and paid themselves handsomely to do it. Unfortunately, when you gamble, you can lose as well as win, and the game was effectively up before they got out. They took the risk and failed.  Ashley soon saw that it was going to cost him the earth and decided he would be better off out of it. Sadly, there are no mug buyers in the current economic climate, and so the decline just keeps going on unarrested.

 

eh ? What are you talking about. It was the clubs' money

 

 

 

If it was the clubs money, then why the hell did Ashley have to stick a shedload of his own cash in to stabilize the club.

 

Under the change of ownership he would of had to pay the debt from the expansion of St James immediately, as i understand.  If he checked the books properly he would of known.

[Dave]

This 50 million that keeps popping up, would somebody care to explain where it comes from based on incoming and outgoing transfer fees? As far as I can see we had sold Woodgate before Souness came in, and we sold Jenas during that period, which makes the actual figure invested closer to 30 million over the space of 3 transfer windows, which I imagine is not too disimilar to other top 6 teams at that time. We had to invest to keep up with the competition. We invested badly, unfortunately, but I don't understand why the investment itself is deserving of criticism.. How else do people expect to get (back) in the top half of the table?

 

It's more who it was given to that in hindsight (though most people knew Souness was hardly a great manager) wasn't the best idea.

 

Shepherd went all-in on a pair of deuces and lost.

[GG]

It just goes to show you can't be too careful!

[Guest getcarter]

I - and I'm certain madras and pretty much everyone else - totally accept Shepherd et al gave us the best years of the last fifty, and they ticked several very important boxes. I also accept that Ashley isn't what I hoped he would be, not by a long stretch.

 

 

 

can we just end it there? surely that sums the whole debate up?

 

By editing out the second part though you're omitting the hypocrisy. I'm more than willing to admit things are s*** at the minute. NE5 is completely unwilling to admit anything but instead prefers to point-score. Over and over and over again.

 

Fair comment though, I'm not going to persue it any more in this thread. I guess the answer (or not) to the question above will tell its own story.

 

no, I don't think the performance was average at all in the bigger scheme of things, if it WAS, then it was only average by their own higher standards as put against the club they took over, and the club we are now as we slide downwards with ever quickening speed.

 

And, I've said this before. Give me a club who takes a risk and has a go rather than one who settles for safety.

 

Now. I'll ask YOU 2 things in relation to the above. Do you - and anyone else - now consider that if Mike Ashley ran this club sitting in mid table - would you still consider it to be mediocre, or successful ?

 

And - will you now settle for the next decade of financial stability while looking upwards at teams playing in europe knowing we were not going to risk our new found stability to try and join them ?

 

Lastly.....once again Dave you have totally ignored the complete childishness of someone else when responding to me, in this case it was jimmymag. You DO see his comments as being childish I take it ? They certainly weren't of an intelligent or mature nature, were they ?

 

These comments are my genuine responses to what you asked, as they always have been.

 

 

 

Surely that is the crux of the argument. Fat Freddy and Hall took the risk with someone else's money and paid themselves handsomely to do it. Unfortunately, when you gamble, you can lose as well as win, and the game was effectively up before they got out. They took the risk and failed.  Ashley soon saw that it was going to cost him the earth and decided he would be better off out of it. Sadly, there are no mug buyers in the current economic climate, and so the decline just keeps going on unarrested.

 

eh ? What are you talking about. It was the clubs' money

 

 

 

If it was the clubs money, then why the hell did Ashley have to stick a shedload of his own cash in to stabilize the club.

 

Under the change of ownership he would of had to pay the debt from the expansion of St James immediately, as i understand.  If he checked the books properly he would of known.

 

So much for due diligence!

[Guest getcarter]

This 50 million that keeps popping up, would somebody care to explain where it comes from based on incoming and outgoing transfer fees? As far as I can see we had sold Woodgate before Souness came in, and we sold Jenas during that period, which makes the actual figure invested closer to 30 million over the space of 3 transfer windows, which I imagine is not too disimilar to other top 6 teams at that time. We had to invest to keep up with the competition. We invested badly, unfortunately, but I don't understand why the investment itself is deserving of criticism.. How else do people expect to get (back) in the top half of the table?

 

It's more who it was given to that in hindsight (though most people knew Souness was hardly a great manager) wasn't the best idea.

 

Shepherd went all-in on a pair of deuces and lost.

 

Cant disagree with that.

[Unbelievable]

This 50 million that keeps popping up, would somebody care to explain where it comes from based on incoming and outgoing transfer fees? As far as I can see we had sold Woodgate before Souness came in, and we sold Jenas during that period, which makes the actual figure invested closer to 30 million over the space of 3 transfer windows, which I imagine is not too disimilar to other top 6 teams at that time. We had to invest to keep up with the competition. We invested badly, unfortunately, but I don't understand why the investment itself is deserving of criticism.. How else do people expect to get (back) in the top half of the table?

 

It's more who it was given to that in hindsight (though most people knew Souness was hardly a great manager) wasn't the best idea.

 

Shepherd went all-in on a pair of deuces and lost.

 

Oh, I am not condoning the appointment, far from it, but as NE5 says, Souness was their appointment, they obviously believed in him, so from that perspective it isn't exactly strange that they backed their man in a similar vain to other clubs who believe in their manager? They backed the wrong man, and the wrong man invested their backing badly, no doubt about that..

[J7]

Hmm.....no reply. Always puzzles me this, that I give out facts and people think its a wind up ?

 

actually you don't, you give one fact repeated ad nauseam - the rest is your opinion tarted up as fact through the smoke and mirror act of condescension

 

between yourself & JJ7 there were facts and opinions, i'll enlighten you:

 

FS was a big part [fnar] of the European qualifications (facts) but he also ran out of ideas (strong conjecture/opinion) and the club was nearly bankrupt/in a dire financial situation (fact)

 

what's so hard about it for you?  you quote the Euro qualifications and JJ7 says: "Yep, then he lost the plot, made too many mistakes and nearly bankrupted the club"

 

he's not contradicting you, you can surely understand that?  he's referring to 2 different points in time man

 

then you reply and tell him to repost his rubbish in 5 years!!!  you remind me of billy pilgrim dude, totally shot to f*** through all the time travelling you've done so you can't work out simple linear facts and events anymore

Good points. Im not biting here, honestly as its just a general point, but there are very few people in business or politics or whatever who are always good. Most people usually start to fail and make mistakes in the end. Look at Hitler who performed miricles at the start, Thatcher, Brooks Mileson, Peter Ridsdale, Doug Ellis etc..... Even if Freddy had won us the league for three seasons between 1997 and 2000, you can't just stick with them when they continue to make mistake after mistake.

 

absolutely agree, and it's a balance thing

 

we'd tipped the scales under FS, and as a PLC in my opinion, but we got very unlucky with who bought us out - as has been said countless times the ashley period being an abject failure to date does not validate the later years of FS & the PLC

 

at the end of the day, it depends how you look at it.

 

Football is a risky business. A lot of people say - and not just on here - that if you aren't in europe, you are s***. Construed : what they mean is they have known nothing less than regularly playing in europe, so don't listen to people like me who try to tell them that such things aren't automatic and only the good clubs with good boards qualify regularly for europe. You hit the nail slightly on the head when you say we were "unlucky with who bought us out"........having seen the club when we were REALLY s**** [far more than the supposed "s****" of the recent past, until now since Ashley came in] I see it differently, I see the vast majority of the clubs in the top 2 leagues as being s****, and I say we "got lucky" when we had good directors. It might be quite a while until we "get lucky" again ....... and a lot of people will be sitting around in 10 years time and looking back at the Halls and Shepherd and realise it, but I obviously hope not bearing in mind my age.

 

This is all I've said from day 1 by the way. At least some people - since ashley - have begun to understand.

 

 

 

 

wrongish, it also depends on why you look at it in a certain way. for example why are you determined,against all reason, to try and make out that we weren't in the s*** at the end of fred's reign despite all the evidence saying we were ?

 

why are you and others like you, against all reason, determined to try and make out that the Halls and Shepherd weren't the best owners we have had at the club for 50 years and it will very difficult to replace them with better ?

 

And - accept that Mike ashley is taking the club downwards, among the also rans, like the vast majority of other football club owners instead of trying to get among the other top clubs which is where we should be and where we spent our time under the Halls and Shepherd.

 

 

 

People do accept that Mike Ashley is taking the club downwards.

 

However, why do you not accept that when the Halls and Shepherd sold the club to Ashley we were already started on the journey downwards. We may have had years and years competing with the top clubs but the bubble had already burst when Ashley bought us, and this was after others had looked at the books and walked away laughing at the financial mess we were in.

 

 

because they ticked the 2 biggest boxes. They had the ambition to succeed, and they backed their appointed managers

 

That is how we qualfied for europe more than any club bar 4 during their time running the club. I hope you enjoyed it, because we might have s*** directors for years, or decades, before we get good ones again.

 

 

 

Same old hyperbole. So you must have missed the grumblings of fans who were not satisfied at the s*** that we were turning out week in week out. Were you at the Sheffield United game for instance?

 

Of course I enjoyed the european games, that goes without saying. But that does not excuse Hall and Shepherd from starting us down the road that we are now on. Things had already turned sour before Mike Ashley came along. He has failed to turn that around and that should not be forgotten either, but you cannot say that Hall and Shepherd are blameless in this.

 

football, like life, is all ups and downs. Fortunately, we had a board who delivered more ups than most clubs will ever see. Because they ticked the most important boxes, unlike 80-90% of clubs and their own predecessors and their first successor too, it will be very difficult to find better. Could take decades in fact. Shame they were so s*** it takes so long to find someone better isn't it ?

 

 

Of course football is about ups and downs, but no decent chairman should let the downs lead a club towards nearly being bankrupt. Leeds had massive ups under Ridsdale, but look at them now because of what happened back then. Theres ambition, then theres stupidity.

 

I agree that Shepherds ambition was great when we were qualifying for the Champions League under Robson. But Shepherd was stupid in the timing of his sacking of Robson, then his next 2 appointments. A chairmans main job is to pick a manager, and he failed not once, but TWICE in a row. Throwing money at a s**** manager, who is unlikely to get you a return on your investment (i.e. by qualifying for the Champions League) is pure stupidity.

 

NE5, you look at things too simplistically and ignore what others are saying. You're either on the wind up, or you just love an arguement and don't actually believe what you're saying.

 

I believe what I'm saying alright. I always have, and whats more, all the things I have said in the past which I got flak for, are all vindicated because they turned out to be right.

 

Just to clarify, do you think appointing Souness and giving him £50 million to spend was the right thing to do?

 

Can you not see that appointing Souness was unambitious, where as giving him £50 million was very ambitious? These things don't match as Souness was never going to take us to the Champions League. The Champions League is where we would need to be if we were to see a return in the investment. Its bad management.

 

I don't really know how many times this has to be said. I didn't appoint Souness. Neither did you .

 

They appointed him, and they backed their manager.

 

Don't you understand this ?

 

BTW, you should really be asking this sort of question to the numerous people who completely supported the throwing of the money at him, and his sales, at the time, who are now complaining about the consequences, instead of someone like me who said that we shouldn't be doing it, at the time.

Eh! I didn't say you appointed Souness. Do you not have an opinion on the Souness appointment? If we're going to judge Shepherds record in splashing the cash, surely we can judge his managerial appointments. They're linked. I know fine well he backed his manager. However his manager was awful which led to the failure.

[jimmymag]

Hmm.....no reply. Always puzzles me this, that I give out facts and people think its a wind up ?

 

actually you don't, you give one fact repeated ad nauseam - the rest is your opinion tarted up as fact through the smoke and mirror act of condescension

 

between yourself & JJ7 there were facts and opinions, i'll enlighten you:

 

FS was a big part [fnar] of the European qualifications (facts) but he also ran out of ideas (strong conjecture/opinion) and the club was nearly bankrupt/in a dire financial situation (fact)

 

what's so hard about it for you?  you quote the Euro qualifications and JJ7 says: "Yep, then he lost the plot, made too many mistakes and nearly bankrupted the club"

 

he's not contradicting you, you can surely understand that?  he's referring to 2 different points in time man

 

then you reply and tell him to repost his rubbish in 5 years!!!  you remind me of billy pilgrim dude, totally shot to f*** through all the time travelling you've done so you can't work out simple linear facts and events anymore

Good points. Im not biting here, honestly as its just a general point, but there are very few people in business or politics or whatever who are always good. Most people usually start to fail and make mistakes in the end. Look at Hitler who performed miricles at the start, Thatcher, Brooks Mileson, Peter Ridsdale, Doug Ellis etc..... Even if Freddy had won us the league for three seasons between 1997 and 2000, you can't just stick with them when they continue to make mistake after mistake.

 

absolutely agree, and it's a balance thing

 

we'd tipped the scales under FS, and as a PLC in my opinion, but we got very unlucky with who bought us out - as has been said countless times the ashley period being an abject failure to date does not validate the later years of FS & the PLC

 

at the end of the day, it depends how you look at it.

 

Football is a risky business. A lot of people say - and not just on here - that if you aren't in europe, you are s***. Construed : what they mean is they have known nothing less than regularly playing in europe, so don't listen to people like me who try to tell them that such things aren't automatic and only the good clubs with good boards qualify regularly for europe. You hit the nail slightly on the head when you say we were "unlucky with who bought us out"........having seen the club when we were REALLY s**** [far more than the supposed "s****" of the recent past, until now since Ashley came in] I see it differently, I see the vast majority of the clubs in the top 2 leagues as being s****, and I say we "got lucky" when we had good directors. It might be quite a while until we "get lucky" again ....... and a lot of people will be sitting around in 10 years time and looking back at the Halls and Shepherd and realise it, but I obviously hope not bearing in mind my age.

 

This is all I've said from day 1 by the way. At least some people - since ashley - have begun to understand.

 

 

 

 

wrongish, it also depends on why you look at it in a certain way. for example why are you determined,against all reason, to try and make out that we weren't in the s*** at the end of fred's reign despite all the evidence saying we were ?

 

why are you and others like you, against all reason, determined to try and make out that the Halls and Shepherd weren't the best owners we have had at the club for 50 years and it will very difficult to replace them with better ?

 

And - accept that Mike ashley is taking the club downwards, among the also rans, like the vast majority of other football club owners instead of trying to get among the other top clubs which is where we should be and where we spent our time under the Halls and Shepherd.

 

 

 

People do accept that Mike Ashley is taking the club downwards.

 

However, why do you not accept that when the Halls and Shepherd sold the club to Ashley we were already started on the journey downwards. We may have had years and years competing with the top clubs but the bubble had already burst when Ashley bought us, and this was after others had looked at the books and walked away laughing at the financial mess we were in.

 

 

because they ticked the 2 biggest boxes. They had the ambition to succeed, and they backed their appointed managers

 

That is how we qualfied for europe more than any club bar 4 during their time running the club. I hope you enjoyed it, because we might have s*** directors for years, or decades, before we get good ones again.

 

 

 

Same old hyperbole. So you must have missed the grumblings of fans who were not satisfied at the s*** that we were turning out week in week out. Were you at the Sheffield United game for instance?

 

Of course I enjoyed the european games, that goes without saying. But that does not excuse Hall and Shepherd from starting us down the road that we are now on. Things had already turned sour before Mike Ashley came along. He has failed to turn that around and that should not be forgotten either, but you cannot say that Hall and Shepherd are blameless in this.

 

football, like life, is all ups and downs. Fortunately, we had a board who delivered more ups than most clubs will ever see. Because they ticked the most important boxes, unlike 80-90% of clubs and their own predecessors and their first successor too, it will be very difficult to find better. Could take decades in fact. Shame they were so s*** it takes so long to find someone better isn't it ?

 

 

Of course football is about ups and downs, but no decent chairman should let the downs lead a club towards nearly being bankrupt. Leeds had massive ups under Ridsdale, but look at them now because of what happened back then. Theres ambition, then theres stupidity.

 

I agree that Shepherds ambition was great when we were qualifying for the Champions League under Robson. But Shepherd was stupid in the timing of his sacking of Robson, then his next 2 appointments. A chairmans main job is to pick a manager, and he failed not once, but TWICE in a row. Throwing money at a shite manager, who is unlikely to get you a return on your investment (i.e. by qualifying for the Champions League) is pure stupidity.

 

NE5, you look at things too simplistically and ignore what others are saying. You're either on the wind up, or you just love an arguement and don't actually believe what you're saying.

 

I believe what I'm saying alright. I always have, and whats more, all the things I have said in the past which I got flak for, are all vindicated because they turned out to be right.

 

 

 

If I could be arsed I'm sure I could find numerous examples of this being another example of NE5's bullshit.

[lovejoy]

I - and I'm certain madras and pretty much everyone else - totally accept Shepherd et al gave us the best years of the last fifty, and they ticked several very important boxes. I also accept that Ashley isn't what I hoped he would be, not by a long stretch.

 

 

 

can we just end it there? surely that sums the whole debate up?

 

By editing out the second part though you're omitting the hypocrisy. I'm more than willing to admit things are s*** at the minute. NE5 is completely unwilling to admit anything but instead prefers to point-score. Over and over and over again.

 

Fair comment though, I'm not going to persue it any more in this thread. I guess the answer (or not) to the question above will tell its own story.

 

exactly, if he comes back with a yes, then its done and dusted!

 

I've made my reply, and I have to say, I'm surprised that you are taking this stance mate

 

 

 

i'm bored man, and i'm not the only one.

[jimmymag]

Hmm.....no reply. Always puzzles me this, that I give out facts and people think its a wind up ?

 

actually you don't, you give one fact repeated ad nauseam - the rest is your opinion tarted up as fact through the smoke and mirror act of condescension

 

between yourself & JJ7 there were facts and opinions, i'll enlighten you:

 

FS was a big part [fnar] of the European qualifications (facts) but he also ran out of ideas (strong conjecture/opinion) and the club was nearly bankrupt/in a dire financial situation (fact)

 

what's so hard about it for you?  you quote the Euro qualifications and JJ7 says: "Yep, then he lost the plot, made too many mistakes and nearly bankrupted the club"

 

he's not contradicting you, you can surely understand that?  he's referring to 2 different points in time man

 

then you reply and tell him to repost his rubbish in 5 years!!!  you remind me of billy pilgrim dude, totally shot to f*** through all the time travelling you've done so you can't work out simple linear facts and events anymore

Good points. Im not biting here, honestly as its just a general point, but there are very few people in business or politics or whatever who are always good. Most people usually start to fail and make mistakes in the end. Look at Hitler who performed miricles at the start, Thatcher, Brooks Mileson, Peter Ridsdale, Doug Ellis etc..... Even if Freddy had won us the league for three seasons between 1997 and 2000, you can't just stick with them when they continue to make mistake after mistake.

 

absolutely agree, and it's a balance thing

 

we'd tipped the scales under FS, and as a PLC in my opinion, but we got very unlucky with who bought us out - as has been said countless times the ashley period being an abject failure to date does not validate the later years of FS & the PLC

 

at the end of the day, it depends how you look at it.

 

Football is a risky business. A lot of people say - and not just on here - that if you aren't in europe, you are s***. Construed : what they mean is they have known nothing less than regularly playing in europe, so don't listen to people like me who try to tell them that such things aren't automatic and only the good clubs with good boards qualify regularly for europe. You hit the nail slightly on the head when you say we were "unlucky with who bought us out"........having seen the club when we were REALLY s**** [far more than the supposed "s****" of the recent past, until now since Ashley came in] I see it differently, I see the vast majority of the clubs in the top 2 leagues as being s****, and I say we "got lucky" when we had good directors. It might be quite a while until we "get lucky" again ....... and a lot of people will be sitting around in 10 years time and looking back at the Halls and Shepherd and realise it, but I obviously hope not bearing in mind my age.

 

This is all I've said from day 1 by the way. At least some people - since ashley - have begun to understand.

 

 

 

 

wrongish, it also depends on why you look at it in a certain way. for example why are you determined,against all reason, to try and make out that we weren't in the s*** at the end of fred's reign despite all the evidence saying we were ?

 

why are you and others like you, against all reason, determined to try and make out that the Halls and Shepherd weren't the best owners we have had at the club for 50 years and it will very difficult to replace them with better ?

 

And - accept that Mike ashley is taking the club downwards, among the also rans, like the vast majority of other football club owners instead of trying to get among the other top clubs which is where we should be and where we spent our time under the Halls and Shepherd.

 

 

 

People do accept that Mike Ashley is taking the club downwards.

 

However, why do you not accept that when the Halls and Shepherd sold the club to Ashley we were already started on the journey downwards. We may have had years and years competing with the top clubs but the bubble had already burst when Ashley bought us, and this was after others had looked at the books and walked away laughing at the financial mess we were in.

 

 

because they ticked the 2 biggest boxes. They had the ambition to succeed, and they backed their appointed managers

 

That is how we qualfied for europe more than any club bar 4 during their time running the club. I hope you enjoyed it, because we might have s*** directors for years, or decades, before we get good ones again.

 

 

 

Same old hyperbole. So you must have missed the grumblings of fans who were not satisfied at the s*** that we were turning out week in week out. Were you at the Sheffield United game for instance?

 

Of course I enjoyed the european games, that goes without saying. But that does not excuse Hall and Shepherd from starting us down the road that we are now on. Things had already turned sour before Mike Ashley came along. He has failed to turn that around and that should not be forgotten either, but you cannot say that Hall and Shepherd are blameless in this.

 

football, like life, is all ups and downs. Fortunately, we had a board who delivered more ups than most clubs will ever see. Because they ticked the most important boxes, unlike 80-90% of clubs and their own predecessors and their first successor too, it will be very difficult to find better. Could take decades in fact. Shame they were so s*** it takes so long to find someone better isn't it ?

 

 

Of course football is about ups and downs, but no decent chairman should let the downs lead a club towards nearly being bankrupt. Leeds had massive ups under Ridsdale, but look at them now because of what happened back then. Theres ambition, then theres stupidity.

 

I agree that Shepherds ambition was great when we were qualifying for the Champions League under Robson. But Shepherd was stupid in the timing of his sacking of Robson, then his next 2 appointments. A chairmans main job is to pick a manager, and he failed not once, but TWICE in a row. Throwing money at a s**** manager, who is unlikely to get you a return on your investment (i.e. by qualifying for the Champions League) is pure stupidity.

 

NE5, you look at things too simplistically and ignore what others are saying. You're either on the wind up, or you just love an arguement and don't actually believe what you're saying.

 

It was pretty clear Shepherd wanted to cut down on the borrowing by the appointment of Allardyce, and this bankruptcy  talk is all speculation - it didnt happen so how can you presume it was going to happen.

 

Shepherd could clearly hold back on spending and be prudent ie: summer of Bowyer and Woodgate sale, yet the ironic thing is we didn't spend in that summer and Shepherd got criticized beyond belief for lack of ambition.  When really he was being cautious as we weren't guaranteed Champions League football that year.  Yet now in hindsight have forum members saying 'spent too much!', 'out of control!', 'ridsdale!'.  It's all a bit ridiculous.

 

I was more convinced that we were going down under Allardyce last season than I am that we are going down under Shearer this season, and if we had been relegated last season with Allardyce as manager and Shepherd as chairman there's no doubt in my mind that we would have gone into administration. This has been born out by the state of the club's finances which Ashley inherited and are now in the public domain.

 

Bearing in mind what is now in the public domain, there must have been a time last season when Shepherd was crapping himself at the prospect I have outlined above. I bet he couldn't believe his luck when he snagged a mug like Ashley to pull him out of the mire and hand him a massive profit to boot.

[NE5]

Hmm.....no reply. Always puzzles me this, that I give out facts and people think its a wind up ?

 

actually you don't, you give one fact repeated ad nauseam - the rest is your opinion tarted up as fact through the smoke and mirror act of condescension

 

between yourself & JJ7 there were facts and opinions, i'll enlighten you:

 

FS was a big part [fnar] of the European qualifications (facts) but he also ran out of ideas (strong conjecture/opinion) and the club was nearly bankrupt/in a dire financial situation (fact)

 

what's so hard about it for you?  you quote the Euro qualifications and JJ7 says: "Yep, then he lost the plot, made too many mistakes and nearly bankrupted the club"

 

he's not contradicting you, you can surely understand that?  he's referring to 2 different points in time man

 

then you reply and tell him to repost his rubbish in 5 years!!!  you remind me of billy pilgrim dude, totally shot to f*** through all the time travelling you've done so you can't work out simple linear facts and events anymore

Good points. Im not biting here, honestly as its just a general point, but there are very few people in business or politics or whatever who are always good. Most people usually start to fail and make mistakes in the end. Look at Hitler who performed miricles at the start, Thatcher, Brooks Mileson, Peter Ridsdale, Doug Ellis etc..... Even if Freddy had won us the league for three seasons between 1997 and 2000, you can't just stick with them when they continue to make mistake after mistake.

 

absolutely agree, and it's a balance thing

 

we'd tipped the scales under FS, and as a PLC in my opinion, but we got very unlucky with who bought us out - as has been said countless times the ashley period being an abject failure to date does not validate the later years of FS & the PLC

 

at the end of the day, it depends how you look at it.

 

Football is a risky business. A lot of people say - and not just on here - that if you aren't in europe, you are s***. Construed : what they mean is they have known nothing less than regularly playing in europe, so don't listen to people like me who try to tell them that such things aren't automatic and only the good clubs with good boards qualify regularly for europe. You hit the nail slightly on the head when you say we were "unlucky with who bought us out"........having seen the club when we were REALLY s**** [far more than the supposed "s****" of the recent past, until now since Ashley came in] I see it differently, I see the vast majority of the clubs in the top 2 leagues as being s****, and I say we "got lucky" when we had good directors. It might be quite a while until we "get lucky" again ....... and a lot of people will be sitting around in 10 years time and looking back at the Halls and Shepherd and realise it, but I obviously hope not bearing in mind my age.

 

This is all I've said from day 1 by the way. At least some people - since ashley - have begun to understand.

 

 

 

 

wrongish, it also depends on why you look at it in a certain way. for example why are you determined,against all reason, to try and make out that we weren't in the s*** at the end of fred's reign despite all the evidence saying we were ?

 

why are you and others like you, against all reason, determined to try and make out that the Halls and Shepherd weren't the best owners we have had at the club for 50 years and it will very difficult to replace them with better ?

 

And - accept that Mike ashley is taking the club downwards, among the also rans, like the vast majority of other football club owners instead of trying to get among the other top clubs which is where we should be and where we spent our time under the Halls and Shepherd.

 

 

 

People do accept that Mike Ashley is taking the club downwards.

 

However, why do you not accept that when the Halls and Shepherd sold the club to Ashley we were already started on the journey downwards. We may have had years and years competing with the top clubs but the bubble had already burst when Ashley bought us, and this was after others had looked at the books and walked away laughing at the financial mess we were in.

 

 

because they ticked the 2 biggest boxes. They had the ambition to succeed, and they backed their appointed managers

 

That is how we qualfied for europe more than any club bar 4 during their time running the club. I hope you enjoyed it, because we might have s*** directors for years, or decades, before we get good ones again.

 

 

 

Same old hyperbole. So you must have missed the grumblings of fans who were not satisfied at the s*** that we were turning out week in week out. Were you at the Sheffield United game for instance?

 

Of course I enjoyed the european games, that goes without saying. But that does not excuse Hall and Shepherd from starting us down the road that we are now on. Things had already turned sour before Mike Ashley came along. He has failed to turn that around and that should not be forgotten either, but you cannot say that Hall and Shepherd are blameless in this.

 

football, like life, is all ups and downs. Fortunately, we had a board who delivered more ups than most clubs will ever see. Because they ticked the most important boxes, unlike 80-90% of clubs and their own predecessors and their first successor too, it will be very difficult to find better. Could take decades in fact. Shame they were so s*** it takes so long to find someone better isn't it ?

 

 

Of course football is about ups and downs, but no decent chairman should let the downs lead a club towards nearly being bankrupt. Leeds had massive ups under Ridsdale, but look at them now because of what happened back then. Theres ambition, then theres stupidity.

 

I agree that Shepherds ambition was great when we were qualifying for the Champions League under Robson. But Shepherd was stupid in the timing of his sacking of Robson, then his next 2 appointments. A chairmans main job is to pick a manager, and he failed not once, but TWICE in a row. Throwing money at a shite manager, who is unlikely to get you a return on your investment (i.e. by qualifying for the Champions League) is pure stupidity.

 

NE5, you look at things too simplistically and ignore what others are saying. You're either on the wind up, or you just love an arguement and don't actually believe what you're saying.

 

I believe what I'm saying alright. I always have, and whats more, all the things I have said in the past which I got flak for, are all vindicated because they turned out to be right.

 

 

 

If I could be arsed I'm sure I could find numerous examples of this being another example of NE5's bullshit.

 

No you won't. You also won't answer in an intelligent fashion either, here or in the other 2 posts I referenced to you will you ?

 

I'll drop this now rather than spoil it completely. I don't know why you posted anyway tbh.

 

 

 

 

[NE5]

Hmm.....no reply. Always puzzles me this, that I give out facts and people think its a wind up ?

 

actually you don't, you give one fact repeated ad nauseam - the rest is your opinion tarted up as fact through the smoke and mirror act of condescension

 

between yourself & JJ7 there were facts and opinions, i'll enlighten you:

 

FS was a big part [fnar] of the European qualifications (facts) but he also ran out of ideas (strong conjecture/opinion) and the club was nearly bankrupt/in a dire financial situation (fact)

 

what's so hard about it for you?  you quote the Euro qualifications and JJ7 says: "Yep, then he lost the plot, made too many mistakes and nearly bankrupted the club"

 

he's not contradicting you, you can surely understand that?  he's referring to 2 different points in time man

 

then you reply and tell him to repost his rubbish in 5 years!!!  you remind me of billy pilgrim dude, totally shot to f*** through all the time travelling you've done so you can't work out simple linear facts and events anymore

Good points. Im not biting here, honestly as its just a general point, but there are very few people in business or politics or whatever who are always good. Most people usually start to fail and make mistakes in the end. Look at Hitler who performed miricles at the start, Thatcher, Brooks Mileson, Peter Ridsdale, Doug Ellis etc..... Even if Freddy had won us the league for three seasons between 1997 and 2000, you can't just stick with them when they continue to make mistake after mistake.

 

absolutely agree, and it's a balance thing

 

we'd tipped the scales under FS, and as a PLC in my opinion, but we got very unlucky with who bought us out - as has been said countless times the ashley period being an abject failure to date does not validate the later years of FS & the PLC

 

at the end of the day, it depends how you look at it.

 

Football is a risky business. A lot of people say - and not just on here - that if you aren't in europe, you are s***. Construed : what they mean is they have known nothing less than regularly playing in europe, so don't listen to people like me who try to tell them that such things aren't automatic and only the good clubs with good boards qualify regularly for europe. You hit the nail slightly on the head when you say we were "unlucky with who bought us out"........having seen the club when we were REALLY s**** [far more than the supposed "s****" of the recent past, until now since Ashley came in] I see it differently, I see the vast majority of the clubs in the top 2 leagues as being s****, and I say we "got lucky" when we had good directors. It might be quite a while until we "get lucky" again ....... and a lot of people will be sitting around in 10 years time and looking back at the Halls and Shepherd and realise it, but I obviously hope not bearing in mind my age.

 

This is all I've said from day 1 by the way. At least some people - since ashley - have begun to understand.

 

 

 

 

wrongish, it also depends on why you look at it in a certain way. for example why are you determined,against all reason, to try and make out that we weren't in the s*** at the end of fred's reign despite all the evidence saying we were ?

 

why are you and others like you, against all reason, determined to try and make out that the Halls and Shepherd weren't the best owners we have had at the club for 50 years and it will very difficult to replace them with better ?

 

And - accept that Mike ashley is taking the club downwards, among the also rans, like the vast majority of other football club owners instead of trying to get among the other top clubs which is where we should be and where we spent our time under the Halls and Shepherd.

 

 

 

People do accept that Mike Ashley is taking the club downwards.

 

However, why do you not accept that when the Halls and Shepherd sold the club to Ashley we were already started on the journey downwards. We may have had years and years competing with the top clubs but the bubble had already burst when Ashley bought us, and this was after others had looked at the books and walked away laughing at the financial mess we were in.

 

 

because they ticked the 2 biggest boxes. They had the ambition to succeed, and they backed their appointed managers

 

That is how we qualfied for europe more than any club bar 4 during their time running the club. I hope you enjoyed it, because we might have s*** directors for years, or decades, before we get good ones again.

 

 

 

Same old hyperbole. So you must have missed the grumblings of fans who were not satisfied at the s*** that we were turning out week in week out. Were you at the Sheffield United game for instance?

 

Of course I enjoyed the european games, that goes without saying. But that does not excuse Hall and Shepherd from starting us down the road that we are now on. Things had already turned sour before Mike Ashley came along. He has failed to turn that around and that should not be forgotten either, but you cannot say that Hall and Shepherd are blameless in this.

 

football, like life, is all ups and downs. Fortunately, we had a board who delivered more ups than most clubs will ever see. Because they ticked the most important boxes, unlike 80-90% of clubs and their own predecessors and their first successor too, it will be very difficult to find better. Could take decades in fact. Shame they were so s*** it takes so long to find someone better isn't it ?

 

 

Of course football is about ups and downs, but no decent chairman should let the downs lead a club towards nearly being bankrupt. Leeds had massive ups under Ridsdale, but look at them now because of what happened back then. Theres ambition, then theres stupidity.

 

I agree that Shepherds ambition was great when we were qualifying for the Champions League under Robson. But Shepherd was stupid in the timing of his sacking of Robson, then his next 2 appointments. A chairmans main job is to pick a manager, and he failed not once, but TWICE in a row. Throwing money at a s**** manager, who is unlikely to get you a return on your investment (i.e. by qualifying for the Champions League) is pure stupidity.

 

NE5, you look at things too simplistically and ignore what others are saying. You're either on the wind up, or you just love an arguement and don't actually believe what you're saying.

 

I believe what I'm saying alright. I always have, and whats more, all the things I have said in the past which I got flak for, are all vindicated because they turned out to be right.

 

Just to clarify, do you think appointing Souness and giving him £50 million to spend was the right thing to do?

 

Can you not see that appointing Souness was unambitious, where as giving him £50 million was very ambitious? These things don't match as Souness was never going to take us to the Champions League. The Champions League is where we would need to be if we were to see a return in the investment. Its bad management.

 

I don't really know how many times this has to be said. I didn't appoint Souness. Neither did you .

 

They appointed him, and they backed their manager.

 

Don't you understand this ?

 

BTW, you should really be asking this sort of question to the numerous people who completely supported the throwing of the money at him, and his sales, at the time, who are now complaining about the consequences, instead of someone like me who said that we shouldn't be doing it, at the time.

Eh! I didn't say you appointed Souness. Do you not have an opinion on the Souness appointment? If we're going to judge Shepherds record in splashing the cash, surely we can judge his managerial appointments. They're linked. I know fine well he backed his manager. However his manager was awful which led to the failure.

 

He was a poor appointment, sure, plenty of people believed in him though, not me. However, the point is that - as unbelievable has said along with myself - YOU appoint someone and YOU back YOUR appointment. You don't appoint someone with the intent of not backing him or not believing in him. Or maybe you do, at least Mike Ashley has.

 

Which means he appointed a good manager and DIDN'T back him = manager leaves the club = you will never get anywhere even if you are lucky enough to find one of the 3 or 4 "right" managers. You don't seem to understand that over 90% of football teams "fail" in the strictest sense. Which is of course why you seriously undervalued [and still do] when we had a decent board.

 

Ashley's idea of success is the Halls and Shepherd's idea of mediocrity, such is the difference between them.

 

 

[Guest Howaythetoon]

We were very much on a footballing and financial downward spiral under Freddy Shepherd due to a few years of mismanagement at both levels but with the appointment of Sam Allardyce and with it an open admission that the manager needed full control, the two for me signalled a shift not only in the running of the club but also another admission from  Shepherd that he had indeed got it wrong and things needed to be ran differently in order to recover both on a football and financial level. As plans go it was something I endorsed and was more than prepared to back hence my support of Big Sam. Perhaps, like Shearer's appointment, Big Sam and a change in how the club would have been ran under him might have came too late in the day for the club under Shepherd, which we'll never know. But we are in a far more perilous situation on and off the pitch today, make no mistake about that and the only man responsible for that is not Shepherd or Souness or Keegan or anyone else other than Mike Ashley.

[J7]

Hmm.....no reply. Always puzzles me this, that I give out facts and people think its a wind up ?

 

actually you don't, you give one fact repeated ad nauseam - the rest is your opinion tarted up as fact through the smoke and mirror act of condescension

 

between yourself & JJ7 there were facts and opinions, i'll enlighten you:

 

FS was a big part [fnar] of the European qualifications (facts) but he also ran out of ideas (strong conjecture/opinion) and the club was nearly bankrupt/in a dire financial situation (fact)

 

what's so hard about it for you?  you quote the Euro qualifications and JJ7 says: "Yep, then he lost the plot, made too many mistakes and nearly bankrupted the club"

 

he's not contradicting you, you can surely understand that?  he's referring to 2 different points in time man

 

then you reply and tell him to repost his rubbish in 5 years!!!  you remind me of billy pilgrim dude, totally shot to f*** through all the time travelling you've done so you can't work out simple linear facts and events anymore

Good points. Im not biting here, honestly as its just a general point, but there are very few people in business or politics or whatever who are always good. Most people usually start to fail and make mistakes in the end. Look at Hitler who performed miricles at the start, Thatcher, Brooks Mileson, Peter Ridsdale, Doug Ellis etc..... Even if Freddy had won us the league for three seasons between 1997 and 2000, you can't just stick with them when they continue to make mistake after mistake.

 

absolutely agree, and it's a balance thing

 

we'd tipped the scales under FS, and as a PLC in my opinion, but we got very unlucky with who bought us out - as has been said countless times the ashley period being an abject failure to date does not validate the later years of FS & the PLC

 

at the end of the day, it depends how you look at it.

 

Football is a risky business. A lot of people say - and not just on here - that if you aren't in europe, you are s***. Construed : what they mean is they have known nothing less than regularly playing in europe, so don't listen to people like me who try to tell them that such things aren't automatic and only the good clubs with good boards qualify regularly for europe. You hit the nail slightly on the head when you say we were "unlucky with who bought us out"........having seen the club when we were REALLY s**** [far more than the supposed "s****" of the recent past, until now since Ashley came in] I see it differently, I see the vast majority of the clubs in the top 2 leagues as being s****, and I say we "got lucky" when we had good directors. It might be quite a while until we "get lucky" again ....... and a lot of people will be sitting around in 10 years time and looking back at the Halls and Shepherd and realise it, but I obviously hope not bearing in mind my age.

 

This is all I've said from day 1 by the way. At least some people - since ashley - have begun to understand.

 

 

 

 

wrongish, it also depends on why you look at it in a certain way. for example why are you determined,against all reason, to try and make out that we weren't in the s*** at the end of fred's reign despite all the evidence saying we were ?

 

why are you and others like you, against all reason, determined to try and make out that the Halls and Shepherd weren't the best owners we have had at the club for 50 years and it will very difficult to replace them with better ?

 

And - accept that Mike ashley is taking the club downwards, among the also rans, like the vast majority of other football club owners instead of trying to get among the other top clubs which is where we should be and where we spent our time under the Halls and Shepherd.

 

 

 

People do accept that Mike Ashley is taking the club downwards.

 

However, why do you not accept that when the Halls and Shepherd sold the club to Ashley we were already started on the journey downwards. We may have had years and years competing with the top clubs but the bubble had already burst when Ashley bought us, and this was after others had looked at the books and walked away laughing at the financial mess we were in.

 

 

because they ticked the 2 biggest boxes. They had the ambition to succeed, and they backed their appointed managers

 

That is how we qualfied for europe more than any club bar 4 during their time running the club. I hope you enjoyed it, because we might have s*** directors for years, or decades, before we get good ones again.

 

 

 

Same old hyperbole. So you must have missed the grumblings of fans who were not satisfied at the s*** that we were turning out week in week out. Were you at the Sheffield United game for instance?

 

Of course I enjoyed the european games, that goes without saying. But that does not excuse Hall and Shepherd from starting us down the road that we are now on. Things had already turned sour before Mike Ashley came along. He has failed to turn that around and that should not be forgotten either, but you cannot say that Hall and Shepherd are blameless in this.

 

football, like life, is all ups and downs. Fortunately, we had a board who delivered more ups than most clubs will ever see. Because they ticked the most important boxes, unlike 80-90% of clubs and their own predecessors and their first successor too, it will be very difficult to find better. Could take decades in fact. Shame they were so s*** it takes so long to find someone better isn't it ?

 

 

Of course football is about ups and downs, but no decent chairman should let the downs lead a club towards nearly being bankrupt. Leeds had massive ups under Ridsdale, but look at them now because of what happened back then. Theres ambition, then theres stupidity.

 

I agree that Shepherds ambition was great when we were qualifying for the Champions League under Robson. But Shepherd was stupid in the timing of his sacking of Robson, then his next 2 appointments. A chairmans main job is to pick a manager, and he failed not once, but TWICE in a row. Throwing money at a s**** manager, who is unlikely to get you a return on your investment (i.e. by qualifying for the Champions League) is pure stupidity.

 

NE5, you look at things too simplistically and ignore what others are saying. You're either on the wind up, or you just love an arguement and don't actually believe what you're saying.

 

I believe what I'm saying alright. I always have, and whats more, all the things I have said in the past which I got flak for, are all vindicated because they turned out to be right.

 

Just to clarify, do you think appointing Souness and giving him £50 million to spend was the right thing to do?

 

Can you not see that appointing Souness was unambitious, where as giving him £50 million was very ambitious? These things don't match as Souness was never going to take us to the Champions League. The Champions League is where we would need to be if we were to see a return in the investment. Its bad management.

 

I don't really know how many times this has to be said. I didn't appoint Souness. Neither did you .

 

They appointed him, and they backed their manager.

 

Don't you understand this ?

 

BTW, you should really be asking this sort of question to the numerous people who completely supported the throwing of the money at him, and his sales, at the time, who are now complaining about the consequences, instead of someone like me who said that we shouldn't be doing it, at the time.

Eh! I didn't say you appointed Souness. Do you not have an opinion on the Souness appointment? If we're going to judge Shepherds record in splashing the cash, surely we can judge his managerial appointments. They're linked. I know fine well he backed his manager. However his manager was awful which led to the failure.

 

He was a poor appointment, sure, plenty of people believed in him though, not me. However, the point is that - as unbelievable has said along with myself - YOU appoint someone and YOU back YOUR appointment. You don't appoint someone with the intent of not backing him or not believing in him. Or maybe you do, at least Mike Ashley has.

 

Which means he appointed a good manager and DIDN'T back him = manager leaves the club = you will never get anywhere even if you are lucky enough to find one of the 3 or 4 "right" managers. You don't seem to understand that over 90% of football teams "fail" in the strictest sense. Which is of course why you seriously undervalued [and still do] when we had a decent board.

 

Ashley's idea of success is the Halls and Shepherd's idea of mediocrity, such is the difference between them.

I understand exactly what you're saying, however I value appointing a good manager more than you by the looks of it. If you appoint a manager, of course you should back him. I wouldnt disagree with that, but the mistake is in the dreadful appointment. That fucked up any plan Shepherd had. It doesnt matter that he thought Souness would do a good job, the vast majority of people thought he was the wrong man, and they were proved right. Shepherd appointed someone for what looks like the sole reason of sorting out an out of control dressing room.

 

Appointing a good manager, the right manager, isnt luck. We should have had loads of options when Robson left, or certainly at the end of the previous season. We could have appointed someone who was just alright, someone who would keep us on the fringe of things. We appointed a man sending another team to the Championship. It was a shocking appointment which undone years of hard work. Even after that, he made another shocking appointment. The most important job of a chairman is to appoint the team manager, and Shepherd failed, on a huge scale. Just by saying, "oh well he backed his manager" doesnt get him off the hook.

 

Im no fan of Ashley so I wouldnt even try and defend him.

 

Its not exactly rocket science though. Appoint a good manager, or at worst someone half decent and then work with them and back them. Don't appoint a good manager and not back him. Don't appoint a shit manager as he will just waste your money. Shepherds judgement has to be called into question post 2004, however successful we were beforehand.

[NE5]

Hmm.....no reply. Always puzzles me this, that I give out facts and people think its a wind up ?

 

actually you don't, you give one fact repeated ad nauseam - the rest is your opinion tarted up as fact through the smoke and mirror act of condescension

 

between yourself & JJ7 there were facts and opinions, i'll enlighten you:

 

FS was a big part [fnar] of the European qualifications (facts) but he also ran out of ideas (strong conjecture/opinion) and the club was nearly bankrupt/in a dire financial situation (fact)

 

what's so hard about it for you?  you quote the Euro qualifications and JJ7 says: "Yep, then he lost the plot, made too many mistakes and nearly bankrupted the club"

 

he's not contradicting you, you can surely understand that?  he's referring to 2 different points in time man

 

then you reply and tell him to repost his rubbish in 5 years!!!  you remind me of billy pilgrim dude, totally shot to f*** through all the time travelling you've done so you can't work out simple linear facts and events anymore

Good points. Im not biting here, honestly as its just a general point, but there are very few people in business or politics or whatever who are always good. Most people usually start to fail and make mistakes in the end. Look at Hitler who performed miricles at the start, Thatcher, Brooks Mileson, Peter Ridsdale, Doug Ellis etc..... Even if Freddy had won us the league for three seasons between 1997 and 2000, you can't just stick with them when they continue to make mistake after mistake.

 

absolutely agree, and it's a balance thing

 

we'd tipped the scales under FS, and as a PLC in my opinion, but we got very unlucky with who bought us out - as has been said countless times the ashley period being an abject failure to date does not validate the later years of FS & the PLC

 

at the end of the day, it depends how you look at it.

 

Football is a risky business. A lot of people say - and not just on here - that if you aren't in europe, you are s***. Construed : what they mean is they have known nothing less than regularly playing in europe, so don't listen to people like me who try to tell them that such things aren't automatic and only the good clubs with good boards qualify regularly for europe. You hit the nail slightly on the head when you say we were "unlucky with who bought us out"........having seen the club when we were REALLY s**** [far more than the supposed "s****" of the recent past, until now since Ashley came in] I see it differently, I see the vast majority of the clubs in the top 2 leagues as being s****, and I say we "got lucky" when we had good directors. It might be quite a while until we "get lucky" again ....... and a lot of people will be sitting around in 10 years time and looking back at the Halls and Shepherd and realise it, but I obviously hope not bearing in mind my age.

 

This is all I've said from day 1 by the way. At least some people - since ashley - have begun to understand.

 

 

 

 

wrongish, it also depends on why you look at it in a certain way. for example why are you determined,against all reason, to try and make out that we weren't in the s*** at the end of fred's reign despite all the evidence saying we were ?

 

why are you and others like you, against all reason, determined to try and make out that the Halls and Shepherd weren't the best owners we have had at the club for 50 years and it will very difficult to replace them with better ?

 

And - accept that Mike ashley is taking the club downwards, among the also rans, like the vast majority of other football club owners instead of trying to get among the other top clubs which is where we should be and where we spent our time under the Halls and Shepherd.

 

 

 

People do accept that Mike Ashley is taking the club downwards.

 

However, why do you not accept that when the Halls and Shepherd sold the club to Ashley we were already started on the journey downwards. We may have had years and years competing with the top clubs but the bubble had already burst when Ashley bought us, and this was after others had looked at the books and walked away laughing at the financial mess we were in.

 

 

because they ticked the 2 biggest boxes. They had the ambition to succeed, and they backed their appointed managers

 

That is how we qualfied for europe more than any club bar 4 during their time running the club. I hope you enjoyed it, because we might have s*** directors for years, or decades, before we get good ones again.

 

 

 

Same old hyperbole. So you must have missed the grumblings of fans who were not satisfied at the s*** that we were turning out week in week out. Were you at the Sheffield United game for instance?

 

Of course I enjoyed the european games, that goes without saying. But that does not excuse Hall and Shepherd from starting us down the road that we are now on. Things had already turned sour before Mike Ashley came along. He has failed to turn that around and that should not be forgotten either, but you cannot say that Hall and Shepherd are blameless in this.

 

football, like life, is all ups and downs. Fortunately, we had a board who delivered more ups than most clubs will ever see. Because they ticked the most important boxes, unlike 80-90% of clubs and their own predecessors and their first successor too, it will be very difficult to find better. Could take decades in fact. Shame they were so s*** it takes so long to find someone better isn't it ?

 

 

Of course football is about ups and downs, but no decent chairman should let the downs lead a club towards nearly being bankrupt. Leeds had massive ups under Ridsdale, but look at them now because of what happened back then. Theres ambition, then theres stupidity.

 

I agree that Shepherds ambition was great when we were qualifying for the Champions League under Robson. But Shepherd was stupid in the timing of his sacking of Robson, then his next 2 appointments. A chairmans main job is to pick a manager, and he failed not once, but TWICE in a row. Throwing money at a s**** manager, who is unlikely to get you a return on your investment (i.e. by qualifying for the Champions League) is pure stupidity.

 

NE5, you look at things too simplistically and ignore what others are saying. You're either on the wind up, or you just love an arguement and don't actually believe what you're saying.

 

I believe what I'm saying alright. I always have, and whats more, all the things I have said in the past which I got flak for, are all vindicated because they turned out to be right.

 

Just to clarify, do you think appointing Souness and giving him £50 million to spend was the right thing to do?

 

Can you not see that appointing Souness was unambitious, where as giving him £50 million was very ambitious? These things don't match as Souness was never going to take us to the Champions League. The Champions League is where we would need to be if we were to see a return in the investment. Its bad management.

 

I don't really know how many times this has to be said. I didn't appoint Souness. Neither did you .

 

They appointed him, and they backed their manager.

 

Don't you understand this ?

 

BTW, you should really be asking this sort of question to the numerous people who completely supported the throwing of the money at him, and his sales, at the time, who are now complaining about the consequences, instead of someone like me who said that we shouldn't be doing it, at the time.

Eh! I didn't say you appointed Souness. Do you not have an opinion on the Souness appointment? If we're going to judge Shepherds record in splashing the cash, surely we can judge his managerial appointments. They're linked. I know fine well he backed his manager. However his manager was awful which led to the failure.

 

He was a poor appointment, sure, plenty of people believed in him though, not me. However, the point is that - as unbelievable has said along with myself - YOU appoint someone and YOU back YOUR appointment. You don't appoint someone with the intent of not backing him or not believing in him. Or maybe you do, at least Mike Ashley has.

 

Which means he appointed a good manager and DIDN'T back him = manager leaves the club = you will never get anywhere even if you are lucky enough to find one of the 3 or 4 "right" managers. You don't seem to understand that over 90% of football teams "fail" in the strictest sense. Which is of course why you seriously undervalued [and still do] when we had a decent board.

 

Ashley's idea of success is the Halls and Shepherd's idea of mediocrity, such is the difference between them.

I understand exactly what you're saying, however I value appointing a good manager more than you by the looks of it. If you appoint a manager, of course you should back him. I wouldnt disagree with that, but the mistake is in the dreadful appointment. That fucked up any plan Shepherd had. It doesnt matter that he thought Souness would do a good job, the vast majority of people thought he was the wrong man, and they were proved right. Shepherd appointed someone for what looks like the sole reason of sorting out an out of control dressing room.

 

Appointing a good manager, the right manager, isnt luck . We should have had loads of options when Robson left, or certainly at the end of the previous season. We could have appointed someone who was just alright, someone who would keep us on the fringe of things. We appointed a man sending another team to the Championship. It was a shocking appointment which undone years of hard work. Even after that, he made another shocking appointment. The most important job of a chairman is to appoint the team manager, and Shepherd failed, on a huge scale. Just by saying, "oh well he backed his manager" doesnt get him off the hook.

 

Im no fan of Ashley so I wouldnt even try and defend him.

 

Its not exactly rocket science though. Appoint a good manager, or at worst someone half decent and then work with them and back them. Don't appoint a good manager and not back him. Don't appoint a shit manager as he will just waste your money. Shepherds judgement has to be called into question post 2004, however successful we were beforehand.

 

can you explain how so many other clubs don't do it then ?

 

Then ally it to the fact that we qualified for europe more than any club bar 4 during their time running the club, taking it from one foot in the 3rd division and unable to sell for 1.25m quid into one of the biggest in the country worth between 100m and 200m quid ?

 

I'm making no apologies for mentioning this again, because its what happened, and it's realistic and truthful taking the whole picture of what they did when they ran the club. It does tend to tell you that we appointed better managers and ran a better club than most clubs in the country.

 

You do see this ? And don't take it as an excuse for defending Souness, because I do not and didn't. I was on here telling people we should sack him and we shouldn't bankroll him as much as I "defend" the old board, and got the same amount of flak for it !!!

 

What you say is of course sensible, but you have to accept the point that they appointed him because they thought he would do a good job for the club and backed him, they stuck to the way of doing things, which is quite correct and the very antithesis of appointing someone and not giving them the tools to succeed, which is what Ashley did to Keegan. No board will ever succeed if they don't give their managers the necessary to do the job they want him to do. Very few boards do this, and this is why they were a good board despite their mistake in appointing Souness.