Financial meltdown?

[madras]

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

has this been a group decision to come back 

i've been hear all along and you still haven't told me where the money was going to come from to compete when we are needing 30mill a season or so to survive day to day.

 

 

my opinion is that fred gambled,lost,ashley took over and looks lost and now the chickens are coming home to shit all over the house.

[madras]

Did you support the sacking of Souness?

 

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

 

 

careful.............. unless you can prove it.

[NE5]

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

has this been a group decision to come back 

i've been hear all along and you still haven't told me where the money was going to come from to compete when we are needing 30mill a season or so to survive day to day.

 

 

my opinion is that fred gambled,lost,ashley took over and looks lost and now the chickens are coming home to shit all over the house.

 

so...how many years and how many owners do you think it willl take to find someone to match the mediocrity of regular eureopean qualification achieved under the Halls and Shepherd

 

Genuine question to anybody,not just you

[madras]

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

has this been a group decision to come back 

i've been hear all along and you still haven't told me where the money was going to come from to compete when we are needing 30mill a season or so to survive day to day.

 

 

my opinion is that fred gambled,lost,ashley took over and looks lost and now the chickens are coming home to s*** all over the house.

 

so...how many years and how many owners do you think it willl take to find someone to match the mediocrity of regular eureopean qualification achieved under the Halls and Shepherd

 

Genuine question to anybody,not just you

oooooh at a rough guess about as long as it will take for you to give straight forward answers to these questions.............

 

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 ?

 

which in one way or another i've been asking for months now.

[NE5]

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

has this been a group decision to come back 

i've been hear all along and you still haven't told me where the money was going to come from to compete when we are needing 30mill a season or so to survive day to day.

 

 

my opinion is that fred gambled,lost,ashley took over and looks lost and now the chickens are coming home to s*** all over the house.

 

so...how many years and how many owners do you think it willl take to find someone to match the mediocrity of regular eureopean qualification achieved under the Halls and Shepherd

 

Genuine question to anybody,not just you

oooooh at a rough guess about as long as it will take for you to give straight forward answers to these questions.............

 

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 ?

 

which in one way or another i've been asking for months now.

 

well, after today, do you still think buying those cut price players is "cost effective". We are going down unless we win next monday night

 

 

[J7]

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

 

 

tell me where I said it was brilliant ?

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

[NE5]

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

 

 

tell me where I said it was brilliant ?

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

 

[madras]

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

has this been a group decision to come back 

i've been hear all along and you still haven't told me where the money was going to come from to compete when we are needing 30mill a season or so to survive day to day.

 

 

my opinion is that fred gambled,lost,ashley took over and looks lost and now the chickens are coming home to s*** all over the house.

 

so...how many years and how many owners do you think it willl take to find someone to match the mediocrity of regular eureopean qualification achieved under the Halls and Shepherd

 

Genuine question to anybody,not just you

oooooh at a rough guess about as long as it will take for you to give straight forward answers to these questions.............

 

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 ?

 

which in one way or another i've been asking for months now.

 

well, after today, do you still think buying those cut price players is "cost effective". We are going down unless we win next monday night

 

 

i agree about monday night.....yet you still haven't answered my questions. (ever thought of a career in politics ?)

[NE5]

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

has this been a group decision to come back 

i've been hear all along and you still haven't told me where the money was going to come from to compete when we are needing 30mill a season or so to survive day to day.

 

 

my opinion is that fred gambled,lost,ashley took over and looks lost and now the chickens are coming home to s*** all over the house.

 

so...how many years and how many owners do you think it willl take to find someone to match the mediocrity of regular eureopean qualification achieved under the Halls and Shepherd

 

Genuine question to anybody,not just you

oooooh at a rough guess about as long as it will take for you to give straight forward answers to these questions.............

 

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 ?

 

which in one way or another i've been asking for months now.

 

well, after today, do you still think buying those cut price players is "cost effective". We are going down unless we win next monday night

 

 

i agree about monday night.....yet you still haven't answered my questions. (ever thought of a career in politics ?)

 

never mind madras. You think the books are a priority, so did Mike Ashley. Lets hope our profit in 3 transfer windows doesn't equal relegation. Are you still pleased Ashley has sorted out the books and hasn't resorted to buying any of these trophy players ?

 

 

[madras]

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

has this been a group decision to come back 

i've been hear all along and you still haven't told me where the money was going to come from to compete when we are needing 30mill a season or so to survive day to day.

 

 

my opinion is that fred gambled,lost,ashley took over and looks lost and now the chickens are coming home to s*** all over the house.

 

so...how many years and how many owners do you think it willl take to find someone to match the mediocrity of regular eureopean qualification achieved under the Halls and Shepherd

 

Genuine question to anybody,not just you

oooooh at a rough guess about as long as it will take for you to give straight forward answers to these questions.............

 

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 ?

 

which in one way or another i've been asking for months now.

 

well, after today, do you still think buying those cut price players is "cost effective". We are going down unless we win next monday night

 

 

i agree about monday night.....yet you still haven't answered my questions. (ever thought of a career in politics ?)

 

never mind madras. You think the books are a priority, so did Mike Ashley. Lets hope our profit in 3 transfer windows doesn't equal relegation. Are you still pleased Ashley has sorted out the books and hasn't resorted to buying any of these trophy players ?

 

 

no answers to those questions eh ?

 

you think we can keep on spending othet peoples money forever...i think at some point they'll want it back or at least stop giving it to us.

 

send me your home address and i'll send you a cassette so you can play it while you sleep, that way you may answer the questions i ask.

[NE5]

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

has this been a group decision to come back 

i've been hear all along and you still haven't told me where the money was going to come from to compete when we are needing 30mill a season or so to survive day to day.

 

 

my opinion is that fred gambled,lost,ashley took over and looks lost and now the chickens are coming home to s*** all over the house.

 

so...how many years and how many owners do you think it willl take to find someone to match the mediocrity of regular eureopean qualification achieved under the Halls and Shepherd

 

Genuine question to anybody,not just you

oooooh at a rough guess about as long as it will take for you to give straight forward answers to these questions.............

 

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 ?

 

which in one way or another i've been asking for months now.

 

well, after today, do you still think buying those cut price players is "cost effective". We are going down unless we win next monday night

 

 

i agree about monday night.....yet you still haven't answered my questions. (ever thought of a career in politics ?)

 

never mind madras. You think the books are a priority, so did Mike Ashley. Lets hope our profit in 3 transfer windows doesn't equal relegation. Are you still pleased Ashley has sorted out the books and hasn't resorted to buying any of these trophy players ?

 

 

no answers to those questions eh ?

 

you think we can keep on spending othet peoples money forever...i think at some point they'll want it back or at least stop giving it to us.

 

send me your home address and i'll send you a cassette so you can play it while you sleep, that way you may answer the questions i ask.

 

so you are happy to sit back and watch us get relegated ?

 

Still, at least the finances are sorted.

 

 

 

 

[madras]

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

has this been a group decision to come back 

i've been hear all along and you still haven't told me where the money was going to come from to compete when we are needing 30mill a season or so to survive day to day.

 

 

my opinion is that fred gambled,lost,ashley took over and looks lost and now the chickens are coming home to s*** all over the house.

 

so...how many years and how many owners do you think it willl take to find someone to match the mediocrity of regular eureopean qualification achieved under the Halls and Shepherd

 

Genuine question to anybody,not just you

oooooh at a rough guess about as long as it will take for you to give straight forward answers to these questions.............

 

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 ?

 

which in one way or another i've been asking for months now.

 

well, after today, do you still think buying those cut price players is "cost effective". We are going down unless we win next monday night

 

 

i agree about monday night.....yet you still haven't answered my questions. (ever thought of a career in politics ?)

 

never mind madras. You think the books are a priority, so did Mike Ashley. Lets hope our profit in 3 transfer windows doesn't equal relegation. Are you still pleased Ashley has sorted out the books and hasn't resorted to buying any of these trophy players ?

 

 

no answers to those questions eh ?

 

you think we can keep on spending othet peoples money forever...i think at some point they'll want it back or at least stop giving it to us.

 

send me your home address and i'll send you a cassette so you can play it while you sleep, that way you may answer the questions i ask.

 

so you are happy to sit back and watch us get relegated ?

 

Still, at least the finances are sorted.

 

 

 

 

no i'm not happy, i think he should've spent some of his money to prevent this happening.

 

 

see, clear and straightforward answers........i'm awaiting yours......been waiting months to be honest !

[NE5]

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

has this been a group decision to come back 

i've been hear all along and you still haven't told me where the money was going to come from to compete when we are needing 30mill a season or so to survive day to day.

 

 

my opinion is that fred gambled,lost,ashley took over and looks lost and now the chickens are coming home to s*** all over the house.

 

so...how many years and how many owners do you think it willl take to find someone to match the mediocrity of regular eureopean qualification achieved under the Halls and Shepherd

 

Genuine question to anybody,not just you

oooooh at a rough guess about as long as it will take for you to give straight forward answers to these questions.............

 

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 ?

 

which in one way or another i've been asking for months now.

 

well, after today, do you still think buying those cut price players is "cost effective". We are going down unless we win next monday night

 

 

i agree about monday night.....yet you still haven't answered my questions. (ever thought of a career in politics ?)

 

never mind madras. You think the books are a priority, so did Mike Ashley. Lets hope our profit in 3 transfer windows doesn't equal relegation. Are you still pleased Ashley has sorted out the books and hasn't resorted to buying any of these trophy players ?

 

 

no answers to those questions eh ?

 

you think we can keep on spending othet peoples money forever...i think at some point they'll want it back or at least stop giving it to us.

 

send me your home address and i'll send you a cassette so you can play it while you sleep, that way you may answer the questions i ask.

 

so you are happy to sit back and watch us get relegated ?

 

Still, at least the finances are sorted.

 

 

 

 

no i'm not happy, i think he should've spent some of his money to prevent this happening.

 

 

see, clear and straightforward answers........i'm awaiting yours......been waiting months to be honest !

 

I answered you ages ago.

 

My point is that you seem to be saying that unless the club could put the money up front they should accept relegation.

 

Clearly bollocks. I've also told you the true situation whereby all the successful clubs in the world are in debt yet you cling to the fairy story that we can possibly be successful while selling our best players for a profit and miraculously find players in the two bob league somewhere of an equal calibre to replace them

 

 

[madras]

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

has this been a group decision to come back 

i've been hear all along and you still haven't told me where the money was going to come from to compete when we are needing 30mill a season or so to survive day to day.

 

 

my opinion is that fred gambled,lost,ashley took over and looks lost and now the chickens are coming home to s*** all over the house.

 

so...how many years and how many owners do you think it willl take to find someone to match the mediocrity of regular eureopean qualification achieved under the Halls and Shepherd

 

Genuine question to anybody,not just you

oooooh at a rough guess about as long as it will take for you to give straight forward answers to these questions.............

 

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 ?

 

which in one way or another i've been asking for months now.

 

well, after today, do you still think buying those cut price players is "cost effective". We are going down unless we win next monday night

 

 

i agree about monday night.....yet you still haven't answered my questions. (ever thought of a career in politics ?)

 

never mind madras. You think the books are a priority, so did Mike Ashley. Lets hope our profit in 3 transfer windows doesn't equal relegation. Are you still pleased Ashley has sorted out the books and hasn't resorted to buying any of these trophy players ?

 

 

no answers to those questions eh ?

 

you think we can keep on spending othet peoples money forever...i think at some point they'll want it back or at least stop giving it to us.

 

send me your home address and i'll send you a cassette so you can play it while you sleep, that way you may answer the questions i ask.

 

so you are happy to sit back and watch us get relegated ?

 

Still, at least the finances are sorted.

 

 

 

 

no i'm not happy, i think he should've spent some of his money to prevent this happening.

 

 

see, clear and straightforward answers........i'm awaiting yours......been waiting months to be honest !

 

I answered you ages ago.

 

My point is that you seem to be saying that unless the club could put the money up front they should accept relegation.

 

Clearly bollocks. I've also told you the true situation whereby all the successful clubs in the world are in debt yet you cling to the fairy story that we can possibly be successful while selling our best players for a profit and miraculously find players in the two bob league somewhere of an equal calibre to replace them

 

 

nah. my point has always been that we tried to do that........spend with the best of 'em but failed to keep up wiv them guv'nor.

 

sooner or later you'll be in a position where you can't keep on trying tp keep up.....true or false ?

[Kitman]

I totally understand the massive financial commitment Ashley has taken on - 20/30 mill a season to keep the club solvent is a lot of money.  I also agree the club couldn't keep spending like it had and I wonder how we would have coped had Ashley not bought the club.

 

However what I don't understand is why Ashley bought the club in the first place.  He must have known it was a major financial commitment and he must have known he would have to pile cash in.  Football clubs are notorious for burning through cash on wages and transfers and very few ever make a profit.  It must also have been obvious that we had a big hole in our accounts and it must also have been obvious he would have to re-mortgage - you don't need extensive due diligence for to get over the top of either of those points.

 

So should we be grateful for him buying us when he couldn't afford to do so?  Why thank someone for buying a stately home and then watching the roof fall in because they can only afford basic maintenance?  I fully accept we may have been in serious financial bother without him but other clubs seem to have managed to stay afloat and restructure their debts perfectly well as necessary - talk of administration and foreclosure just seem over the top to me.  If you don't accept a doomsday financial meltdown scenario, I don't see a lot to thank him for personally.  I keep waiting for West Ham to go into liquidation but it hasn't happened yet.

 

 

[Dave]

I totally understand the massive financial commitment Ashley has taken on - 20/30 mill a season to keep the club solvent is a lot of money.  I also agree the club couldn't keep spending like it had and I wonder how we would have coped had Ashley not bought the club.

 

However what I don't understand is why Ashley bought the club in the first place.  He must have known it was a major financial commitment and he must have known he would have to pile cash in.  Football clubs are notorious for burning through cash on wages and transfers and very few ever make a profit.  It must also have been obvious that we had a big hole in our accounts and it must also have been obvious he would have to re-mortgage - you don't need extensive due diligence for to get over the top of either of those points.

 

So should we be grateful for him buying us when he couldn't afford to do so?  Why thank someone for buying a stately home and then watching the roof fall in because they can only afford basic maintenance?  I fully accept we may have been in serious financial bother without him but other clubs seem to have managed to stay afloat and restructure their debts perfectly well as necessary - talk of administration and foreclosure just seem over the top to me.  If you don't accept a doomsday financial meltdown scenario, I don't see a lot to thank him for personally.  I keep waiting for West Ham to go into liquidation but it hasn't happened yet.

 

[Kitman]

I totally understand the massive financial commitment Ashley has taken on - 20/30 mill a season to keep the club solvent is a lot of money.  I also agree the club couldn't keep spending like it had and I wonder how we would have coped had Ashley not bought the club.

 

However what I don't understand is why Ashley bought the club in the first place.  He must have known it was a major financial commitment and he must have known he would have to pile cash in.  Football clubs are notorious for burning through cash on wages and transfers and very few ever make a profit.  It must also have been obvious that we had a big hole in our accounts and it must also have been obvious he would have to re-mortgage - you don't need extensive due diligence for to get over the top of either of those points.

 

So should we be grateful for him buying us when he couldn't afford to do so?  Why thank someone for buying a stately home and then watching the roof fall in because they can only afford basic maintenance?  I fully accept we may have been in serious financial bother without him but other clubs seem to have managed to stay afloat and restructure their debts perfectly well as necessary - talk of administration and foreclosure just seem over the top to me.  If you don't accept a doomsday financial meltdown scenario, I don't see a lot to thank him for personally.  I keep waiting for West Ham to go into liquidation but it hasn't happened yet.

 

 

Cheers Dave.  I know the credit crunch changed things but the 'get by with no net investment on the squad' strategy seems to have always been there (that's my impression anyway).  Maybe that's understandable given the amounts of cash he's forked out to buy the club and replace the external loan creditors but it's somewhat naive.......

 

The main thing I don't get was the lack of spending in January.  I totally understand Madras' viewpoint about not being able to sustain the same spending year after year, but to extend my metaphor about the stately home, if it's obvious the roof is about to fall in, don't you find the money for serious emergency repairs?

 

Oh well, I'll never understand how this calamitous season has got this point, all so avoidable but somehow so inevitable.  Can't wait for it to be over tbh.

[samag]

People say we should be buying more players, not making profits in the transfer window etc. you are missing the fact we could have spent more money, but look at the players we have bought (.Do we really want any more Nolan’s R. Tailors at this club.)  That is the standard of player we now can only atrached.The club has been going downhill for a number of years now, players know that, the better players when moving will get the chance to go to more than one club. So we are not as attractive as we were a few seasons ago.

Until we can appoint a manager that good players will respect and be happy to play for we will always be in this position. We have  not had that type of manager since Sir Bobby,

(I think most people thought Keegan would walk at the first sign of trouble)

So until the people who own the club can attracted that kind of manger and give him a little bit of backing it is going to be a long hard road back into the top 8 or so of the premiership.

 

[Kitman]

People say we should be buying more players, not making profits in the transfer window etc. you are missing the fact we could have spent more money, but look at the players we have bought (.Do we really want any more Nolans R. Tailors at this club.)  That is the standard of player we now can only atrached.The club has been going downhill for a number of years now, players know that, the better players when moving will get the chance to go to more than one club. So we are not as attractive as we were a few seasons ago.

Until we can appoint a manager that good players will respect and be happy to play for we will always be in this position. We have  not had that type of manager since Sir Bobby,

(I think most people thought Keegan would walk at the first sign of trouble)

So until the people who own the club can attracted that kind of manger and give him a little bit of backing it is going to be a long hard road back into the top 8 or so of the premiership.

 

 

I take your point about the manager and agree with that.  However the calibre of player we can attract is difficult to say - our stock has plainly fallen, but to what extent we don't know.  However that is irrelevant if we are not prepared to spend the money on transfer fees and wages for players better than the likes of Nolan and R Taylor.  The key here is wages - the main draw for non-Geordie and especially foreign players is going to be if we pay top dollar.  But that was always the case once we dropped out of Europe anyway imo. 

[Guest toonlass]

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

has this been a group decision to come back 

i've been hear all along and you still haven't told me where the money was going to come from to compete when we are needing 30mill a season or so to survive day to day.

 

 

my opinion is that fred gambled,lost,ashley took over and looks lost and now the chickens are coming home to s*** all over the house.

 

so...how many years and how many owners do you think it willl take to find someone to match the mediocrity of regular eureopean qualification achieved under the Halls and Shepherd

 

Genuine question to anybody,not just you

oooooh at a rough guess about as long as it will take for you to give straight forward answers to these questions.............

 

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 ?

 

which in one way or another i've been asking for months now.

 

well, after today, do you still think buying those cut price players is "cost effective". We are going down unless we win next monday night

 

 

 

Reckon the Fulham and Boro games are needed too like.

 

I totally understand the massive financial commitment Ashley has taken on - 20/30 mill a season to keep the club solvent is a lot of money.  I also agree the club couldn't keep spending like it had and I wonder how we would have coped had Ashley not bought the club.

 

However what I don't understand is why Ashley bought the club in the first place.  He must have known it was a major financial commitment and he must have known he would have to pile cash in.  Football clubs are notorious for burning through cash on wages and transfers and very few ever make a profit.  It must also have been obvious that we had a big hole in our accounts and it must also have been obvious he would have to re-mortgage - you don't need extensive due diligence for to get over the top of either of those points.

 

So should we be grateful for him buying us when he couldn't afford to do so?  Why thank someone for buying a stately home and then watching the roof fall in because they can only afford basic maintenance?  I fully accept we may have been in serious financial bother without him but other clubs seem to have managed to stay afloat and restructure their debts perfectly well as necessary - talk of administration and foreclosure just seem over the top to me.  If you don't accept a doomsday financial meltdown scenario, I don't see a lot to thank him for personally.  I keep waiting for West Ham to go into liquidation but it hasn't happened yet.

 

 

 

Exactly Kitman. Everyone and their granny knows that a football club is not the way to make money. Mike Ashley has failed to realise to compete with the big boys we need to spend cash and has concentrated on trying to sort out the financial mess that John Hall and Fred Shepherd left us in. Ashley never has had the "hero" treatment from me, indeed I stayed well away from his entourage at away matches/never went to Blu Bambu etc when he was splashing the cash and buying the pints in. We were in a mess when Ashley bought us, but his arsing about has just compounded that beyond belief.

[J7]

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

 

 

tell me where I said it was brilliant ?

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[NE5]

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

 

 

tell me where I said it was brilliant ?

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

[madras]

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

 

 

tell me where I said it was brilliant ?

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

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

[NE5]

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

 

 

tell me where I said it was brilliant ?

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

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

 

yep, going by the "clough analogy", in your opinion he must have been a shite manager because he left them relegated.

 

 

[madras]

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

 

 

tell me where I said it was brilliant ?

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

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

 

yep, going by the "clough analogy", in your opinion he must have been a s**** manager because he left them relegated.

 

 

nope. he done very well. for a while was probably the best there was, then he lost it. should have got out or been removed a while before he left.

 

you know who we should get in. howard wilkinson as he has manged a team to win the league.