Financial meltdown?

[NE5]

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

 

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

 

 

see my previous post to jj7. Quite amazing what you lot who are intent on defending Ashley to give ammunition to your desire to demean what the Halls and Shepherd did will stoop to.........still, I can't even pm you can I and discuss it off board, because you've blocked me for disagreeing with you 

[Dave]

End of thread then, everyone.

 

NE5 either has learning disabilities or is purely here to wind people up. The last few pages have been completely ignored and we're right back to square one. Just when I thought there were some decent posts in this thread too, from both sides of the fence.

 

I suggest nobody bites.

[NE5]

End of thread then, everyone.

 

NE5 either has learning disabilities or is purely here to wind people up. The last few pages have been completely ignored and we're right back to square one. Just when I thought there were some decent posts in this thread too, from both sides of the fence.

 

I suggest nobody bites.

 

Just because you disagree Dave ?

 

You do realise, I've been proven right about pretty much everything I've said over the last few years I take it ?

 

 

[Dr Venkman]

End of thread then, everyone.

 

NE5 either has learning disabilities or is purely here to wind people up. The last few pages have been completely ignored and we're right back to square one. Just when I thought there were some decent posts in this thread too, from both sides of the fence.

 

I suggest nobody bites.

 

Just because you disagree Dave ?

 

You do realise, I've been proven right about pretty much everything I've said over the last few years I take it ?

 

 

 

!!!

[mrmojorisin75]

End of thread then, everyone.

 

NE5 either has learning disabilities or is purely here to wind people up. The last few pages have been completely ignored and we're right back to square one. Just when I thought there were some decent posts in this thread too, from both sides of the fence.

 

I suggest nobody bites.

 

 

 

perhaps the key to it all?

[mrmojorisin75]

End of thread then, everyone.

 

NE5 either has learning disabilities or is purely here to wind people up. The last few pages have been completely ignored and we're right back to square one. Just when I thought there were some decent posts in this thread too, from both sides of the fence.

 

I suggest nobody bites.

 

Just because you disagree Dave ?

 

You do realise, I've been proven right about pretty much everything I've said over the last few years I take it ?

 

god, sorry if this ends the thread but i can't help myself

 

all you've actually said by your own admission is that good boards are hard to come by, you believe the last one was good and given we accept the idea that good boards are hard to come by there's a strong chance anyone taking over would not be as good as the last one ran by FS

 

wup-dee-fucking doo

 

here's my prediction for the next UK government: 

 

good governments are hard to come by and we had a decent one with new labour who are having a bit of a rough patch after a good period, however as i assert that good governments are hard to come by there's a strong chance the tories will be shit (considering they'll be taking the reigns slap bang in the middle of the biggest economic downturn in anyone's lifetime this probability increases but is not guaranteed) BUT if they do succeed i'm still right as i never stated they'd definately fail, just that it was probable

 

any bells ringing for you NE5?  thought not

[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 didnt 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 doesnt make them a nailed on success, but it certainly helps. The owners didnt help either Big Sam or Keegan. Im 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 werent just poor. There are only a handful of worse appointments in Premier League history. Appointing Souness was unforgivable. I wouldnt 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, doesnt make Shepherd record post 2004 look any better for me.

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

NE5s point is, and always has been, that Mr Ashleys lack of ambition doesnt make business sense. That the financial position Shepherd left behind would look like a bed of roses compared to the problems relegation will bring. That Mr Ashley should have put his hand in his pocket (again if you like) and brought in some quality players to strengthen a woefully inadequate squad. Hes had three chances to do it - last January, over the summer and again this January - and gambled on scraping by with the current dross (minus anyone he could sell) each time.

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

There were virtually no successes post-2004. Successes previous to that are not what im talking about and they don't really matter when I talk about someone losing the plot. Im not judging his whole record, just how he lost the plot and we needed a change. You just totally ignore this every single time I post.

[Guest toonlass]

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

 

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

 

 

see my previous post to jj7. Quite amazing what you lot who are intent on defending Ashley to give ammunition to your desire to demean what the Halls and Shepherd did will stoop to.........still, I can't even pm you can I and discuss it off board, because you've blocked me for disagreeing with you 

 

Who is defending Ashley? You know, and ignore my thoughts on Ashley purely because I think that Shepherd and Hall had already started us on this journey before they sold up. Therefore as I do not agree 100% with you I must be an Ashley sympathiser despite what I say.

 

The part in bold is irrelevent tbh.

 

 

[dcmk]

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

 

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

 

 

see my previous post to jj7. Quite amazing what you lot who are intent on defending Ashley to give ammunition to your desire to demean what the Halls and Shepherd did will stoop to.........still, I can't even pm you can I and discuss it off board, because you've blocked me for disagreeing with you 

 

Who is defending Ashley? You know, and ignore my thoughts on Ashley purely because I think that Shepherd and Hall had already started us on this journey before they sold up. Therefore as I do not agree 100% with you I must be an Ashley sympathiser despite what I say.

 

The part in bold is irrelevent tbh.

 

 

 

NE5 point is quite simple imo, i dont think it needs that much discussion as it does.

 

He argues good chairmen back the managers which they appoint, this backing in the past has got us to Europe.  It is not a fool proof way to get there but it does make him a good chairmen.

 

The appointment of managers is never guaranteed success.  NE5 admits himself that Souness, Allardyce didnt work.  They were appointed for the right reasons though, and it was never in Shepherds mind that it would be counter constructive.  We were in debt but most clubs are, especially the successful ones.  No one knows the state of the finances really, he didnt sell up because was running out of options in fact he fought against the sale by Ashley.

 

Thats a brief summary i have no idea, why that generates so much discussion on this board.

[mrmojorisin75]

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

 

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

 

 

see my previous post to jj7. Quite amazing what you lot who are intent on defending Ashley to give ammunition to your desire to demean what the Halls and Shepherd did will stoop to.........still, I can't even pm you can I and discuss it off board, because you've blocked me for disagreeing with you 

 

Who is defending Ashley? You know, and ignore my thoughts on Ashley purely because I think that Shepherd and Hall had already started us on this journey before they sold up. Therefore as I do not agree 100% with you I must be an Ashley sympathiser despite what I say.

 

The part in bold is irrelevent tbh.

 

 

 

NE5 point is quite simple imo, i dont think it needs that much discussion as it does.

 

He argues good chairmen back the managers which they appoint, this backing in the past has got us to Europe.  It is not a fool proof way to get there but it does make him a good chairmen.

 

The appointment of managers is never guaranteed success.  NE5 admits himself that Souness, Allardyce didnt work.  They were appointed for the right reasons though, and it was never in Shepherds mind that it would be counter constructive.  We were in debt but most clubs are, especially the successful ones.  No one knows the state of the finances really, he didnt sell up because was running out of options in fact he fought against the sale by Ashley.

 

Thats a brief summary i have no idea, why that generates so much discussion on this board.

 

you have no idea, really? 

[dcmk]

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

 

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

 

 

see my previous post to jj7. Quite amazing what you lot who are intent on defending Ashley to give ammunition to your desire to demean what the Halls and Shepherd did will stoop to.........still, I can't even pm you can I and discuss it off board, because you've blocked me for disagreeing with you 

 

Who is defending Ashley? You know, and ignore my thoughts on Ashley purely because I think that Shepherd and Hall had already started us on this journey before they sold up. Therefore as I do not agree 100% with you I must be an Ashley sympathiser despite what I say.

 

The part in bold is irrelevent tbh.

 

 

 

NE5 point is quite simple imo, i dont think it needs that much discussion as it does.

 

He argues good chairmen back the managers which they appoint, this backing in the past has got us to Europe.  It is not a fool proof way to get there but it does make him a good chairmen.

 

The appointment of managers is never guaranteed success.  NE5 admits himself that Souness, Allardyce didnt work.  They were appointed for the right reasons though, and it was never in Shepherds mind that it would be counter constructive.  We were in debt but most clubs are, especially the successful ones.  No one knows the state of the finances really, he didnt sell up because was running out of options in fact he fought against the sale by Ashley.

 

Thats a brief summary i have no idea, why that generates so much discussion on this board.

 

you have no idea, really? 

 

If you look on every thread over 5 pages pretty sure this discussion is brought up.  Its way OTT

[mrmojorisin75]

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

 

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

 

 

see my previous post to jj7. Quite amazing what you lot who are intent on defending Ashley to give ammunition to your desire to demean what the Halls and Shepherd did will stoop to.........still, I can't even pm you can I and discuss it off board, because you've blocked me for disagreeing with you 

 

Who is defending Ashley? You know, and ignore my thoughts on Ashley purely because I think that Shepherd and Hall had already started us on this journey before they sold up. Therefore as I do not agree 100% with you I must be an Ashley sympathiser despite what I say.

 

The part in bold is irrelevent tbh.

 

 

 

NE5 point is quite simple imo, i dont think it needs that much discussion as it does.

 

He argues good chairmen back the managers which they appoint, this backing in the past has got us to Europe.  It is not a fool proof way to get there but it does make him a good chairmen.

 

The appointment of managers is never guaranteed success.  NE5 admits himself that Souness, Allardyce didnt work.  They were appointed for the right reasons though, and it was never in Shepherds mind that it would be counter constructive.  We were in debt but most clubs are, especially the successful ones.  No one knows the state of the finances really, he didnt sell up because was running out of options in fact he fought against the sale by Ashley.

 

Thats a brief summary i have no idea, why that generates so much discussion on this board.

 

you have no idea, really? 

 

If you look on every thread over 5 pages pretty sure this discussion is brought up.  Its way OTT

 

a brief synopsis:

 

on a random thread NE5 pops up with a snidey post that turns the tide towards how good the old board were and how we all lived in carlsberg commercials and had supermodel birds when FS was around

 

people bite to prove him wrong and show that it wasn't always so great

 

he never listens to a word anyone else says

 

it goes to hell in a handcart

 

 

 

[Teasy]

 

NE5 point is quite simple imo, i dont think it needs that much discussion as it does.

 

He argues good chairmen back the managers which they appoint, this backing in the past has got us to Europe.  It is not a fool proof way to get there but it does make him a good chairmen.

 

The appointment of managers is never guaranteed success.  NE5 admits himself that Souness, Allardyce didnt work.  They were appointed for the right reasons though, and it was never in Shepherds mind that it would be counter constructive.  We were in debt but most clubs are, especially the successful ones.  No one knows the state of the finances really, he didnt sell up because was running out of options in fact he fought against the sale by Ashley.

 

Thats a brief summary i have no idea, why that generates so much discussion on this board.

 

Good chairmen do more then back their managers though, I mean backing a manager is not the one and only definition of a good chairmen.  Obviously Ashley has been anything but a good owner, but I certainly wouldn't call fat Fred a good chairman either.

 

Most successful clubs aren't in debt in the same way we were.  That's to say most successful clubs aren't consistently making losses totalling over 35-40% of their total revenue every year with those losses rising every year.

 

Also we aren't a successful club, so what's the point in comparing us to one financially?

[madras]

End of thread then, everyone.

 

NE5 either has learning disabilities or is purely here to wind people up. The last few pages have been completely ignored and we're right back to square one. Just when I thought there were some decent posts in this thread too, from both sides of the fence.

 

I suggest nobody bites.

 

Just because you disagree Dave ?

 

You do realise, I've been proven right about pretty much everything I've said over the last few years I take it ?

 

god, sorry if this ends the thread but i can't help myself

 

all you've actually said by your own admission is that good boards are hard to come by, you believe the last one was good and given we accept the idea that good boards are hard to come by there's a strong chance anyone taking over would not be as good as the last one ran by FS

 

wup-dee-f***ing doo

 

here's my prediction for the next UK government: 

 

good governments are hard to come by and we had a decent one with new labour who are having a bit of a rough patch after a good period, however as i assert that good governments are hard to come by there's a strong chance the tories will be s*** (considering they'll be taking the reigns slap bang in the middle of the biggest economic downturn in anyone's lifetime this probability increases but is not guaranteed) BUT if they do succeed i'm still right as i never stated they'd definately fail, just that it was probable

 

any bells ringing for you NE5?  thought not

don't forget NE5's pointing out that good boards back their manager while also saying allardyce was brought in to do a job on the cheap,also never quite accepting that everyone's debt is different and clubs running well can afford to carry it better than clubs ran poorly (why didn't leeds just borrow more money ?),also having the bizzarre idea that a manger doing poorly for a long while should be kept in place because of what he done years previously.

 

NE5 hasn't any learning difficuilties and he's not a WUM. however because this has gone on sooo long and the way he has dressed his argument he feels he can not acknowladge the faults of the previous regime without damaging his own personal standing.

[Pilko]

Why do we let this obsessed cunt steer every thread down the same fucking path? It's a joke.

[madras]

Why do we let this obsessed c*** steer every thread down the same f***ing path? It's a joke.

i prefer to see it as someone thinking they are looking great while actually looking a bit of a narna. (i know that should be nana but i didn't want anything thinking i meant grandmother)

[NE5]

End of thread then, everyone.

 

NE5 either has learning disabilities or is purely here to wind people up. The last few pages have been completely ignored and we're right back to square one. Just when I thought there were some decent posts in this thread too, from both sides of the fence.

 

I suggest nobody bites.

 

Just because you disagree Dave ?

 

You do realise, I've been proven right about pretty much everything I've said over the last few years I take it ?

 

god, sorry if this ends the thread but i can't help myself

 

all you've actually said by your own admission is that good boards are hard to come by, you believe the last one was good and given we accept the idea that good boards are hard to come by there's a strong chance anyone taking over would not be as good as the last one ran by FS

 

wup-dee-fucking doo

 

here's my prediction for the next UK government: 

 

good governments are hard to come by and we had a decent one with new labour who are having a bit of a rough patch after a good period, however as i assert that good governments are hard to come by there's a strong chance the tories will be shit (considering they'll be taking the reigns slap bang in the middle of the biggest economic downturn in anyone's lifetime this probability increases but is not guaranteed) BUT if they do succeed i'm still right as i never stated they'd definately fail, just that it was probable

 

any bells ringing for you NE5?  thought not

 

precisely. Unfortunately, that particular view was roundly condemned by the vast majority, a perfect example of which is in my sig.

 

I think both our main policital parties are shite BTW.

 

 

[NE5]

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

 

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

 

 

see my previous post to jj7. Quite amazing what you lot who are intent on defending Ashley to give ammunition to your desire to demean what the Halls and Shepherd did will stoop to.........still, I can't even pm you can I and discuss it off board, because you've blocked me for disagreeing with you 

 

Who is defending Ashley? You know, and ignore my thoughts on Ashley purely because I think that Shepherd and Hall had already started us on this journey before they sold up. Therefore as I do not agree 100% with you I must be an Ashley sympathiser despite what I say.

 

The part in bold is irrelevent tbh.

 

 

 

NE5 point is quite simple imo, i dont think it needs that much discussion as it does.

 

He argues good chairmen back the managers which they appoint, this backing in the past has got us to Europe.  It is not a fool proof way to get there but it does make him a good chairmen.

 

The appointment of managers is never guaranteed success.  NE5 admits himself that Souness, Allardyce didnt work.  They were appointed for the right reasons though, and it was never in Shepherds mind that it would be counter constructive.  We were in debt but most clubs are, especially the successful ones.  No one knows the state of the finances really, he didnt sell up because was running out of options in fact he fought against the sale by Ashley.

 

Thats a brief summary i have no idea, why that generates so much discussion on this board.

 

thats right mate, its all so straightforward, it beggars belief the amount of people who have spent all this time arguing differently.

 

 

[madras]

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

 

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

 

 

see my previous post to jj7. Quite amazing what you lot who are intent on defending Ashley to give ammunition to your desire to demean what the Halls and Shepherd did will stoop to.........still, I can't even pm you can I and discuss it off board, because you've blocked me for disagreeing with you 

 

Who is defending Ashley? You know, and ignore my thoughts on Ashley purely because I think that Shepherd and Hall had already started us on this journey before they sold up. Therefore as I do not agree 100% with you I must be an Ashley sympathiser despite what I say.

 

The part in bold is irrelevent tbh.

 

 

 

NE5 point is quite simple imo, i dont think it needs that much discussion as it does.

 

He argues good chairmen back the managers which they appoint, this backing in the past has got us to Europe.  It is not a fool proof way to get there but it does make him a good chairmen.

 

The appointment of managers is never guaranteed success.  NE5 admits himself that Souness, Allardyce didnt work.  They were appointed for the right reasons though, and it was never in Shepherds mind that it would be counter constructive.  We were in debt but most clubs are, especially the successful ones.  No one knows the state of the finances really, he didnt sell up because was running out of options in fact he fought against the sale by Ashley.

 

Thats a brief summary i have no idea, why that generates so much discussion on this board.

 

thats right mate, its all so straightforward, it beggars belief the amount of people who have spent all this time arguing differently.

 

 

debt......haven't we already done this to death ?

 

briefly. it's ok to carry and create debt if you are in a finacially decent position......being in a position where you've cut everything to the bone and still spending 30mill a year more than you are bringing in is not a good position.

 

 

NE5....do you think we should keep borrowing and racking up debt year on year until successful or bankrupt ?

 

can you answer the question instead of given some opaque reply.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

Why do we let this obsessed cunt steer every thread down the same fucking path? It's a joke.

 

Like every other question in this thread, don't expect an answer to that.

[Neil]

Poor Pilko.

 

 

[NE5]

Why do we let this obsessed cunt steer every thread down the same fucking path? It's a joke.

 

Like every other question in this thread, don't expect an answer to that.

 

the answers are always there, its just that people aren't bright enough to see them.

 

Are you and others like you still insistent that Ashleys prudency was the way forward ?

 

 

[Guest The Libertine]

decent user gets banned, troll continues to pollute site.

 

[madras]

Poor Pilko.

 

 

thats ma boy

[madras]

Why do we let this obsessed c*** steer every thread down the same f***ing path? It's a joke.

 

Like every other question in this thread, don't expect an answer to that.

 

the answers are always there, its just that people aren't bright enough to see them.

 

Are you and others like you still insistent that Ashleys prudency was the way forward ?

 

 

the answers are always there ? well all the letters are there you just have to pick them out of various threads, re-arrange and hey presto.....an honest straight forward answer.

 

the reply you usually give is that other clubs have debt or you've got to spend to compete.neither of which answers my question.