Financial meltdown?

[Teasy]

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.

 

Nah sorry but I can't agree with that at all.  Ashley is only one of the people responsible for our problems, and Shepherd is very much one of the people responsible!

[madras]

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.

 

 

i'm not and i've never said they weren't. remember my clough alagory (ie he may be the best you've had but if they stopo doing it and start going backwards with no hope of turning it round then they must go) nice to see that your way of combating my opinion is to make up what it is i'm saying.

 

mike ashley just hasn't stopped us going where we were headed prior to his arrival.

 

[madras]

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.

 

 

we have cut down and are still looking at a possible 30mill loss this year............where would this money have come from before spending on players to compete  ?

[madras]

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 f***ed 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 s*** 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.

 

 

shall i finish the story off for you though, ot goes something like this................" then proceeded to run the club in such a way that we dropped to lower mid table and looked like dropping further, for these fantastic performances the club paid  near 70% of its incomings purely on wages, we spent 5 years worth of sponsorship revenue right up front and still went backwards on and off the pitch, appointed managers the calibre of souness and roeder (doersn't matter though as getting a good manager is just a lottery, there was as much chance kinnear being fantastic as there was getting someone who at least came with a decent CV).

[NE5]

Ok madras.

 

You got what you wanted.

 

Financial stability.

 

2nd, or maybe even 3rd division football.

 

Great. I hope you are happy those shit owners who qualified us for europe more than every club bar 4 during their time running the club and the highest league positions  since the 1950's, have been confined to the dustbin.

 

You clearly have great judgement. Why aren't you happy ?

 

Well done.

 

 

[Guest The Libertine]

shepherd appointing souness and then giving him a shit load of money to waste is the worst thing to ever happen to this club, so that makes shepherd our worst chairman ever.

 

FACT.

[mrmojorisin75]

Do you NE5 accept that in the latter years under Shepherd's tenure the performances on the pitch were very average and the performance off it was worrying at best?

 

 

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.

 

 

can't quote properly but anyways why has no-one picked this up? 

 

diabolical statement in all fairness

 

 

[dcmk]

shepherd appointing souness and then giving him a s*** load of money to waste is the worst thing to ever happen to this club, so that makes shepherd our worst chairman ever.

 

FACT.

 

You really just don't have a clue. 

 

So, all the good stuff before that seems to be ignored  .. HE is now our worst chairman ever huh? how does that work out?  Chairmans not supposed to back the managers they bring in then?  Idiot.

[SteveMc]

Don't think it can be denied that he brought in very much the wrong manager though.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

shepherd appointing souness and then giving him a s*** load of money to waste is the worst thing to ever happen to this club, so that makes shepherd our worst chairman ever.

 

FACT.

 

You really just don't have a clue. 

 

So, all the good stuff before that seems to be ignored  .. HE is now our worst chairman ever huh? how does that work out?  Chairmans not supposed to back the managers they bring in then?  Idiot.

 

Indeed, calling him the worst chairman ever is a bit strong, we've been closer to being finished financially than we are now.

 

I think for a lot of people it's the way people leave or the state they leave you in that shapes how they are remembered.

 

Ridsdale gave Leeds some fantastic times, but the state he left them in means he won't be fondly remembered by anyone there.

 

Given gave us years of fantastic service, but the way he engineered his move has left a bad taste with a lot of people.

 

Going back, it was the same with Hamann, fantastic player when he was here & since then, but no one likes him.

 

It's how you manage the good times & the bad times that shapes peoples' opinions, and having got rid of Robson (rightly IMO I might add, although the timing was appalling) the people running the club (owners, chairmen & managers) have pretty much got it wrong ever since.

[madras]

Ok madras.

 

You got what you wanted.

 

Financial stability.

 

2nd, or maybe even 3rd division football.

 

Great. I hope you are happy those s*** owners who qualified us for europe more than every club bar 4 during their time running the club and the highest league positions  since the 1950's, have been confined to the dustbin.

 

You clearly have great judgement. Why aren't you happy ?

 

Well done.

 

 

you don't read a thing others print do you ? i'll recap (again) what i've said.

 

we needed stabilising financially from where fred left us ,because you can only rack up losses for so long before the banks think you a bad enough risk to say "no more". take alook a round,it is happening to a few clubs.

 

i have no problems with taking a risk, but when you take a few risks and they've failed,then it's time to stop and steady things before things spiral out of control (which they were doing)

 

please describe the clubs position on and off the pitch when fred left ?

 

where would the money have come from to compete with the top 4 if we are having to borrow 30mill just to survive day to day ?

 

why can't you understand that those who have done well may have to be got rid of when they do poorly over a longer term ?

 

i've always answered all your questions straightforwardly, please don't do the dodge of giving opaque answers that aren't really answers.

[NE5]

shepherd appointing souness and then giving him a shit load of money to waste is the worst thing to ever happen to this club, so that makes shepherd our worst chairman ever.

 

FACT.

 

clueless

 

[NE5]

Do you NE5 accept that in the latter years under Shepherd's tenure the performances on the pitch were very average and the performance off it was worrying at best?

 

 

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.

 

 

can't quote properly but anyways why has no-one picked this up? 

 

diabolical statement in all fairness

 

 

 

well, if you think so, what do you think of the position we are in now, and the position in which the Halls and Shepherd found the club in 1991, and our league positions of the previous 35 years before that ?

 

 

[mrmojorisin75]

Do you NE5 accept that in the latter years under Shepherd's tenure the performances on the pitch were very average and the performance off it was worrying at best?

 

 

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.

 

 

can't quote properly but anyways why has no-one picked this up? 

 

diabolical statement in all fairness

well, if you think so, what do you think of the position we are in now, and the position in which the Halls and Shepherd found the club in 1991, and our league positions of the previous 35 years before that ?

 

again mate your reply bears no relevance to the time period or passage of debate in question

 

you've clearly stated you don't believe that performances were average towards the end of the shepherd era, i'm sure i'm not alone in thinking that diabolical tbh

 

throwing in a disclaimer about "the bigger scheme of things" changes nothing really - it's like saying my performance in marathon running is above average in the bigger scheme which includes people with no legs even though i can't run for shit

 

one of the most biased statements i've read in a while

 

i'll answer your question mind:  i'm not impressed, not impressed at all but i fully recognise the part FS & other played in raising the clubs expectations to CL football and their subsequent part in our decline pre-ashley that was very real indeed both on and off the pitch

 

ashley has basically taken what was a declining non-terminal (yet) cancer patient and thrown him down a lift shaft from just the right height not to kill but to severely injure, and he deserves all the vitriol he gets for it

[Dave]

Sort your quotes out ffs.

[mrmojorisin75]

Sort your quotes out ffs.

 

haven't a scooby how to quote more than post, thought i did well getting it like that

[Dave]

Sort your quotes out ffs.

 

haven't a scooby how to quote more than post, thought i did well getting it like that

 

It's just:

[quote]Text here[/quote]

 

Around each different post. Simples.

[NE5]

Ok madras.

 

You got what you wanted.

 

Financial stability.

 

2nd, or maybe even 3rd division football.

 

Great. I hope you are happy those shit owners who qualified us for europe more than every club bar 4 during their time running the club and the highest league positions  since the 1950's, have been confined to the dustbin.

 

You clearly have great judgement. Why aren't you happy ?

 

Well done.

 

 

 

Bloody hell, you sound like one of my kids when they are going off in the huff. Are you really in your 50's cos you are doing a grand impression of a 10 year old.

 

 

 

no, but I can't be bothered to make the same point to madras all the time. Basically, Ashley's running of the club is going to put us exactly where I say, unless he changes. So anybody who prefers that to the way the Halls and Shepherd ran it, its their prerogative. It isn't how I want it run though.......how long do you think it will take for someone to come along and match the shite owners that were the Halls and Shepherd ?

 

Basically, my idea of a successful football club isn't one that makes a profit and fights relegation every year or trying to get back promoted, with no hope of challenging for european places, and it never will be.

 

 

[mrmojorisin75]

Sort your quotes out ffs.

 

haven't a scooby how to quote more than post, thought i did well getting it like that

 

It's just:

[quote]Text here[/quote]

 

Around each different post. Simples.

 

ah!!  mine had a / on the first quote, i gets it now....

[NE5]

Do you NE5 accept that in the latter years under Shepherd's tenure the performances on the pitch were very average and the performance off it was worrying at best?

 

 

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.

 

 

can't quote properly but anyways why has no-one picked this up? 

 

diabolical statement in all fairness

well, if you think so, what do you think of the position we are in now, and the position in which the Halls and Shepherd found the club in 1991, and our league positions of the previous 35 years before that ?

 

again mate your reply bears no relevance to the time period or passage of debate in question

 

you've clearly stated you don't believe that performances were average towards the end of the shepherd era, i'm sure i'm not alone in thinking that diabolical tbh

 

throwing in a disclaimer about "the bigger scheme of things" changes nothing really - it's like saying my performance in marathon running is above average in the bigger scheme which includes people with no legs even though i can't run for shit

 

one of the most biased statements i've read in a while

 

i'll answer your question mind:  i'm not impressed, not impressed at all but i fully recognise the part FS & other played in raising the clubs expectations to CL football and their subsequent part in our decline pre-ashley that was very real indeed both on and off the pitch

 

ashley has basically taken what was a declining non-terminal (yet) cancer patient and thrown him down a lift shaft from just the right height not to kill but to severely injure, and he deserves all the vitriol he gets for it

 

no. I said that put against the higher standards of the Halls and Shepherd, they were not so good, but put against the standards of the people who ran the club before and after the Halls and Shepherd it was much better than average. Whats difficult about understanding this ?

[Guest The Libertine]

3 bites on the worst chairman ever thing. im getting good at this 

[NE5]

3 bites on the worst chairman ever thing. im getting good at this 

 

poor.

 

I'd prefer to be right, which of course I am.

 

 

[mrmojorisin75]

no. I said that put against the higher standards of the Halls and Shepherd, they were not so good, but put against the standards of the people who ran the club before and after the Halls and Shepherd it was much better than average. Whats difficult about understanding this ?

 

it was the bit where you said "no, I don't think the performance was average at all" that threw me see?

[mrmojorisin75]

3 bites on the worst chairman ever thing. im getting good at this 

 

poor.

 

I'd prefer to be right, which of course I am.

 

 

 

why is it so important to be right?

[Dave]

The appointment of Shearer and the removal of Wise (I think it's pretty fucking obvious that was Shearer's terms) is a massive step forward for the Ashley regime IMO. Shearer isn't the type to take shit, and he's already made it pretty clear in the press that he's in charge. He's also said that they accept the mistakes they've made, and this is the key to our future. If the club is not to be sold, Ashley must learn from the mistakes.

 

Hopefully we'll stay up this season, and if so then there is absolutely no excuse for us not to start progressing properly from now. The financial issues will start to become less of a problem, we'll have a strong manager in charge and no summer tournament to stand in the way of transfer plans.

 

Ashley has made a monumental fuckup of this season and his gamble is looking perilous, but if it pays off we can then start to move forward.