Guest toonlass Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 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. You forgot the "club who have been in europe the most bar the top 4" answer too Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 decent user gets banned, troll continues to pollute site. I take it you mean me, because I disagree with you ? Who is right and who is wrong then ? doh To me, the trolls are those who still defend Ashley and are still convinced the Halls and Shepherd were shite, surely the penny ought to have dropped by now. Anyway, tell you what mate, ignore me and I won't reply to you ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 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. You forgot the "club who have been in europe the most bar the top 4" answer too well, tell me toonlass, is that true or not ? This isn't difficult. Yes or no. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtype Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 decent user gets banned, troll continues to pollute site. This is absurd. Yes, I suppose he was being "abusive," but surely some of his frustration is understandable? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 decent user gets banned, troll continues to pollute site. I take it you mean me, because I disagree with you ? Who is right and who is wrong then ? doh To me, the trolls are those who still defend Ashley and are still convinced the Halls and Shepherd were s****, surely the penny ought to have dropped by now. Anyway, tell you what mate, ignore me and I won't reply to you ? where as almost everyone thinks ashley has made a balls of it and fred and co done well then fucked up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 decent user gets banned, troll continues to pollute site. This is absurd. Yes, I suppose he was being "abusive," but surely some of his frustration is understandable? Simply can't go around calling people "cunts". That's really all there is to it. I like Pilko, but just because he's a "decent user" doesn't make him exempt from the rules. Frustration is understandable and it happens to all of us, myself included, as far as I recall I haven't resorted to calling anyone a "cunt" on here though in all my time registered. There's just no need for that level of abuse. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 He shouldn't have done it like, but if you search for the word cunt on here there's like 34 pages of people calling people cunts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 decent user gets banned, troll continues to pollute site. This is absurd. Yes, I suppose he was being "abusive," but surely some of his frustration is understandable? Simply can't go around calling people "cunts". That's really all there is to it. I like Pilko, but just because he's a "decent user" doesn't make him exempt from the rules. Frustration is understandable and it happens to all of us, myself included, as far as I recall I haven't resorted to calling anyone a "cunt" on here though in all my time registered. There's just no need for that level of abuse. Well, if it helps, I've no axe to grind with him, you can let him back for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 He shouldn't have done it like, but if you search for the word cunt on here there's like 34 pages of people calling people cunts. There'd probably be more, but 34 is the maximum return... It's another case of "damned if you do..." I'm afraid, he'll be back in a week. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
J7 Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 decent user gets banned, troll continues to pollute site. I take it you mean me, because I disagree with you ? Who is right and who is wrong then ? doh To me, the trolls are those who still defend Ashley and are still convinced the Halls and Shepherd were s****, surely the penny ought to have dropped by now. Anyway, tell you what mate, ignore me and I won't reply to you ? Do you just deliberatly ignore people and read what you want to read? I can't see anyone defending Ashley. You like to set this arguement up as Ashley v Shepherd, when it isnt that. Critisism of Shepherd is not automatically support for Ashley. If being a good chairman was as easy as spending the clubs money and borrowing to back your manager who is in charge purely because of luck, then most people would be able to do it. Theres alot more to it than that. You know this but you're too far along the line now to admit it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 He shouldn't have done it like, but if you search for the word c*** on here there's like 34 pages of people calling people c***s. There'd probably be more, but 34 is the maximum return... It's another case od "damned if you do..." I'm afraid, he'll be back in a week. there'll be a light in the window for my wandering boy :'( Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 decent user gets banned, troll continues to pollute site. I take it you mean me, because I disagree with you ? Who is right and who is wrong then ? doh To me, the trolls are those who still defend Ashley and are still convinced the Halls and Shepherd were s****, surely the penny ought to have dropped by now. Anyway, tell you what mate, ignore me and I won't reply to you ? Do you just deliberatly ignore people and read what you want to read? I can't see anyone defending Ashley. You like to set this arguement up as Ashley v Shepherd, when it isnt that. Critisism of Shepherd is not automatically support for Ashley. If being a good chairman was as easy as spending the clubs money and borrowing to back your manager who is in charge purely because of luck, then most people would be able to do it. Theres alot more to it than that. You know this but you're too far along the line now to admit it. People say I'm a troll, just because I disagree with them, right ? If people now accept that Ashley has been shite, and worse than the Halls and Shepherd, why not say so instead of continuing to attack the Halls and Shepherd for giving us our best league positions in 50 years, achieved because they backed their managers . If Ashley had backed Keegan, he would still be here and I have no doubt at all we would be pushing for a place in europe. Instead, he has gone and we are in the shit, because he didn't back his manager. Get some perspective. I don't want to patronise, but this is really so simple. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
J7 Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 decent user gets banned, troll continues to pollute site. I take it you mean me, because I disagree with you ? Who is right and who is wrong then ? doh To me, the trolls are those who still defend Ashley and are still convinced the Halls and Shepherd were s****, surely the penny ought to have dropped by now. Anyway, tell you what mate, ignore me and I won't reply to you ? Do you just deliberatly ignore people and read what you want to read? I can't see anyone defending Ashley. You like to set this arguement up as Ashley v Shepherd, when it isnt that. Critisism of Shepherd is not automatically support for Ashley. If being a good chairman was as easy as spending the clubs money and borrowing to back your manager who is in charge purely because of luck, then most people would be able to do it. Theres alot more to it than that. You know this but you're too far along the line now to admit it. People say I'm a troll, just because I disagree with them, right ? If people now accept that Ashley has been s****, and worse than the Halls and Shepherd, why not say so instead of continuing to attack the Halls and Shepherd for giving us our best league positions in 50 years, achieved because they backed their managers . If Ashley had backed Keegan, he would still be here and I have no doubt at all we would be pushing for a place in europe. Instead, he has gone and we are in the s***, because he didn't back his manager. Get some perspective. I don't want to patronise, but this is really so simple. Ive actually said that Shepherd was better than Ashley, even in Shepherds last few terrible years, but that doesnt get away from the fact he had lost the plot post 2004. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 decent user gets banned, troll continues to pollute site. I take it you mean me, because I disagree with you ? Who is right and who is wrong then ? doh To me, the trolls are those who still defend Ashley and are still convinced the Halls and Shepherd were s****, surely the penny ought to have dropped by now. Anyway, tell you what mate, ignore me and I won't reply to you ? Do you just deliberatly ignore people and read what you want to read? I can't see anyone defending Ashley. You like to set this arguement up as Ashley v Shepherd, when it isnt that. Critisism of Shepherd is not automatically support for Ashley. If being a good chairman was as easy as spending the clubs money and borrowing to back your manager who is in charge purely because of luck, then most people would be able to do it. Theres alot more to it than that. You know this but you're too far along the line now to admit it. People say I'm a troll, just because I disagree with them, right ? If people now accept that Ashley has been s****, and worse than the Halls and Shepherd, why not say so instead of continuing to attack the Halls and Shepherd for giving us our best league positions in 50 years, achieved because they backed their managers . If Ashley had backed Keegan, he would still be here and I have no doubt at all we would be pushing for a place in europe. Instead, he has gone and we are in the s***, because he didn't back his manager. Get some perspective. I don't want to patronise, but this is really so simple. but didn't you say allardyce probably wouldn't have got that sort of backing from fred.........takes us back to my question that you accidentally overlooked. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 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. You forgot the "club who have been in europe the most bar the top 4" answer too well, tell me toonlass, is that true or not ? This isn't difficult. Yes or no. Are you addressing me there? Because you fail to have noticed that my name is not Toonlass. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 decent user gets banned, troll continues to pollute site. I take it you mean me, because I disagree with you ? Who is right and who is wrong then ? doh To me, the trolls are those who still defend Ashley and are still convinced the Halls and Shepherd were s****, surely the penny ought to have dropped by now. Anyway, tell you what mate, ignore me and I won't reply to you ? Do you just deliberatly ignore people and read what you want to read? I can't see anyone defending Ashley. You like to set this arguement up as Ashley v Shepherd, when it isnt that. Critisism of Shepherd is not automatically support for Ashley. If being a good chairman was as easy as spending the clubs money and borrowing to back your manager who is in charge purely because of luck, then most people would be able to do it. Theres alot more to it than that. You know this but you're too far along the line now to admit it. People say I'm a troll, just because I disagree with them, right ? If people now accept that Ashley has been s****, and worse than the Halls and Shepherd, why not say so instead of continuing to attack the Halls and Shepherd for giving us our best league positions in 50 years, achieved because they backed their managers . If Ashley had backed Keegan, he would still be here and I have no doubt at all we would be pushing for a place in europe. Instead, he has gone and we are in the s***, because he didn't back his manager. Get some perspective. I don't want to patronise, but this is really so simple. Ive actually said that Shepherd was better than Ashley, even in Shepherds last few terrible years, but that doesnt get away from the fact he had lost the plot post 2004. they made a terrible appointment in Souness [which again, numerous people backed to succeed, and spend the money that he did], but it doesn't change the fact that their basic idea of how success is gained was correct. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 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. You forgot the "club who have been in europe the most bar the top 4" answer too well, tell me toonlass, is that true or not ? This isn't difficult. Yes or no. Are you addressing me there? Because you fail to have noticed that my name is not Toonlass. You also failed to notice that what I say is correct, they DID qualify for europe more than anybody bar 4. Or did you, it certainly looks like you did. Anyway, as you're hell bent on having a go at me, firstly for liking to go to the pub, and now your hypocrisy of a few days ago culminating in sending me a pm and blocking the reply. I won't bother replying to you and hope the thread can address the issue of the cost of relegation, and the true cost of the unwillingness of the owner to back his manager and speculate to accumulate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 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. You forgot the "club who have been in europe the most bar the top 4" answer too well, tell me toonlass, is that true or not ? This isn't difficult. Yes or no. Are you addressing me there? Because you fail to have noticed that my name is not Toonlass. You also failed to notice that what I say is correct, they DID qualify for europe more than anybody bar 4. Or did you, it certainly looks like you did. You failed to notice I did not answer the question, as I wanted to clarify that you were addressing me. You still haven't said if you were or not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 decent user gets banned, troll continues to pollute site. I take it you mean me, because I disagree with you ? Who is right and who is wrong then ? doh To me, the trolls are those who still defend Ashley and are still convinced the Halls and Shepherd were s****, surely the penny ought to have dropped by now. Anyway, tell you what mate, ignore me and I won't reply to you ? Do you just deliberatly ignore people and read what you want to read? I can't see anyone defending Ashley. You like to set this arguement up as Ashley v Shepherd, when it isnt that. Critisism of Shepherd is not automatically support for Ashley. If being a good chairman was as easy as spending the clubs money and borrowing to back your manager who is in charge purely because of luck, then most people would be able to do it. Theres alot more to it than that. You know this but you're too far along the line now to admit it. People say I'm a troll, just because I disagree with them, right ? If people now accept that Ashley has been s****, and worse than the Halls and Shepherd, why not say so instead of continuing to attack the Halls and Shepherd for giving us our best league positions in 50 years, achieved because they backed their managers . If Ashley had backed Keegan, he would still be here and I have no doubt at all we would be pushing for a place in europe. Instead, he has gone and we are in the s***, because he didn't back his manager. Get some perspective. I don't want to patronise, but this is really so simple. Ive actually said that Shepherd was better than Ashley, even in Shepherds last few terrible years, but that doesnt get away from the fact he had lost the plot post 2004. they made a terrible appointment in Souness [which again, numerous people backed to succeed, and spend the money that he did], but it doesn't change the fact that their basic idea of how success is gained was correct. wrong...so very very wrong unless the basic idea is to lose money years on end, being unable to make ends meet yet still borrowing money. where was the money going to come from ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
J7 Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 decent user gets banned, troll continues to pollute site. I take it you mean me, because I disagree with you ? Who is right and who is wrong then ? doh To me, the trolls are those who still defend Ashley and are still convinced the Halls and Shepherd were s****, surely the penny ought to have dropped by now. Anyway, tell you what mate, ignore me and I won't reply to you ? Do you just deliberatly ignore people and read what you want to read? I can't see anyone defending Ashley. You like to set this arguement up as Ashley v Shepherd, when it isnt that. Critisism of Shepherd is not automatically support for Ashley. If being a good chairman was as easy as spending the clubs money and borrowing to back your manager who is in charge purely because of luck, then most people would be able to do it. Theres alot more to it than that. You know this but you're too far along the line now to admit it. People say I'm a troll, just because I disagree with them, right ? If people now accept that Ashley has been s****, and worse than the Halls and Shepherd, why not say so instead of continuing to attack the Halls and Shepherd for giving us our best league positions in 50 years, achieved because they backed their managers . If Ashley had backed Keegan, he would still be here and I have no doubt at all we would be pushing for a place in europe. Instead, he has gone and we are in the s***, because he didn't back his manager. Get some perspective. I don't want to patronise, but this is really so simple. Ive actually said that Shepherd was better than Ashley, even in Shepherds last few terrible years, but that doesnt get away from the fact he had lost the plot post 2004. they made a terrible appointment in Souness [which again, numerous people backed to succeed, and spend the money that he did], but it doesn't change the fact that their basic idea of how success is gained was correct. The basic idea in my opinion is appointing a good manager to spend that money. Whereas you think managerial success is down to luck. Liverpool ended up with Benitez, Villa with O'Neill, and we got Souness and Roeder. That isnt luck in my opinion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 decent user gets banned, troll continues to pollute site. I take it you mean me, because I disagree with you ? Who is right and who is wrong then ? doh To me, the trolls are those who still defend Ashley and are still convinced the Halls and Shepherd were s****, surely the penny ought to have dropped by now. Anyway, tell you what mate, ignore me and I won't reply to you ? Do you just deliberatly ignore people and read what you want to read? I can't see anyone defending Ashley. You like to set this arguement up as Ashley v Shepherd, when it isnt that. Critisism of Shepherd is not automatically support for Ashley. If being a good chairman was as easy as spending the clubs money and borrowing to back your manager who is in charge purely because of luck, then most people would be able to do it. Theres alot more to it than that. You know this but you're too far along the line now to admit it. People say I'm a troll, just because I disagree with them, right ? If people now accept that Ashley has been s****, and worse than the Halls and Shepherd, why not say so instead of continuing to attack the Halls and Shepherd for giving us our best league positions in 50 years, achieved because they backed their managers . If Ashley had backed Keegan, he would still be here and I have no doubt at all we would be pushing for a place in europe. Instead, he has gone and we are in the s***, because he didn't back his manager. Get some perspective. I don't want to patronise, but this is really so simple. Ive actually said that Shepherd was better than Ashley, even in Shepherds last few terrible years, but that doesnt get away from the fact he had lost the plot post 2004. they made a terrible appointment in Souness [which again, numerous people backed to succeed, and spend the money that he did], but it doesn't change the fact that their basic idea of how success is gained was correct. The basic idea in my opinion is appointing a good manager to spend that money. Whereas you think managerial success is down to luck. Liverpool ended up with Benitez, Villa with O'Neill, and we got Souness and Roeder. That isnt luck in my opinion. Well, it isn't you or me who chooses the managers. What do you think of Chelsea appointing Grant and Scolari and sacking them both after short periods ? Unlucky ? And what do you think of all the clubs who haven't qualified for europe as often as we did ? Unlucky ? Get real mate. Get some perspective. I'm not taking the piss, this is perspective. Nobody appoints winning managers all the time, its impossible, and I bet that when Wenger and Ferguson leave their respective clubs, mistakes will be made at those clubs too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 decent user gets banned, troll continues to pollute site. I take it you mean me, because I disagree with you ? Who is right and who is wrong then ? doh To me, the trolls are those who still defend Ashley and are still convinced the Halls and Shepherd were s****, surely the penny ought to have dropped by now. Anyway, tell you what mate, ignore me and I won't reply to you ? Do you just deliberatly ignore people and read what you want to read? I can't see anyone defending Ashley. You like to set this arguement up as Ashley v Shepherd, when it isnt that. Critisism of Shepherd is not automatically support for Ashley. If being a good chairman was as easy as spending the clubs money and borrowing to back your manager who is in charge purely because of luck, then most people would be able to do it. Theres alot more to it than that. You know this but you're too far along the line now to admit it. People say I'm a troll, just because I disagree with them, right ? If people now accept that Ashley has been s****, and worse than the Halls and Shepherd, why not say so instead of continuing to attack the Halls and Shepherd for giving us our best league positions in 50 years, achieved because they backed their managers . If Ashley had backed Keegan, he would still be here and I have no doubt at all we would be pushing for a place in europe. Instead, he has gone and we are in the s***, because he didn't back his manager. Get some perspective. I don't want to patronise, but this is really so simple. Ive actually said that Shepherd was better than Ashley, even in Shepherds last few terrible years, but that doesnt get away from the fact he had lost the plot post 2004. they made a terrible appointment in Souness [which again, numerous people backed to succeed, and spend the money that he did], but it doesn't change the fact that their basic idea of how success is gained was correct. The basic idea in my opinion is appointing a good manager to spend that money. Whereas you think managerial success is down to luck. Liverpool ended up with Benitez, Villa with O'Neill, and we got Souness and Roeder. That isnt luck in my opinion. Well, it isn't you or me who chooses the managers. What do you think of Chelsea appointing Grant and Scolari and sacking them both after short periods ? Unlucky ? And what do you think of all the clubs who haven't qualified for europe as often as we did ? Unlucky ? Get real mate. Get some perspective. I'm not taking the piss, this is perspective. Nobody appoints winning managers all the time, its impossible, and I bet that when Wenger and Ferguson leave their respective clubs, mistakes will be made at those clubs too. so you were ok with appointing kinnear ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 decent user gets banned, troll continues to pollute site. I take it you mean me, because I disagree with you ? Who is right and who is wrong then ? doh To me, the trolls are those who still defend Ashley and are still convinced the Halls and Shepherd were s****, surely the penny ought to have dropped by now. Anyway, tell you what mate, ignore me and I won't reply to you ? Do you just deliberatly ignore people and read what you want to read? I can't see anyone defending Ashley. You like to set this arguement up as Ashley v Shepherd, when it isnt that. Critisism of Shepherd is not automatically support for Ashley. If being a good chairman was as easy as spending the clubs money and borrowing to back your manager who is in charge purely because of luck, then most people would be able to do it. Theres alot more to it than that. You know this but you're too far along the line now to admit it. People say I'm a troll, just because I disagree with them, right ? If people now accept that Ashley has been s****, and worse than the Halls and Shepherd, why not say so instead of continuing to attack the Halls and Shepherd for giving us our best league positions in 50 years, achieved because they backed their managers . If Ashley had backed Keegan, he would still be here and I have no doubt at all we would be pushing for a place in europe. Instead, he has gone and we are in the s***, because he didn't back his manager. Get some perspective. I don't want to patronise, but this is really so simple. Ive actually said that Shepherd was better than Ashley, even in Shepherds last few terrible years, but that doesnt get away from the fact he had lost the plot post 2004. they made a terrible appointment in Souness [which again, numerous people backed to succeed, and spend the money that he did], but it doesn't change the fact that their basic idea of how success is gained was correct. The basic idea in my opinion is appointing a good manager to spend that money. Whereas you think managerial success is down to luck. Liverpool ended up with Benitez, Villa with O'Neill, and we got Souness and Roeder. That isnt luck in my opinion. Well, it isn't you or me who chooses the managers. What do you think of Chelsea appointing Grant and Scolari and sacking them both after short periods ? Unlucky ? And what do you think of all the clubs who haven't qualified for europe as often as we did ? Unlucky ? Get real mate. Get some perspective. I'm not taking the piss, this is perspective. Nobody appoints winning managers all the time, its impossible, and I bet that when Wenger and Ferguson leave their respective clubs, mistakes will be made at those clubs too. so you were ok with appointing kinnear ? not my decision. But he didn't back him, just like Keegan. He can appoint anybody he likes, but if he doesn't give him the tools to do the job properly, then it won't get done properly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
J7 Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 decent user gets banned, troll continues to pollute site. I take it you mean me, because I disagree with you ? Who is right and who is wrong then ? doh To me, the trolls are those who still defend Ashley and are still convinced the Halls and Shepherd were s****, surely the penny ought to have dropped by now. Anyway, tell you what mate, ignore me and I won't reply to you ? Do you just deliberatly ignore people and read what you want to read? I can't see anyone defending Ashley. You like to set this arguement up as Ashley v Shepherd, when it isnt that. Critisism of Shepherd is not automatically support for Ashley. If being a good chairman was as easy as spending the clubs money and borrowing to back your manager who is in charge purely because of luck, then most people would be able to do it. Theres alot more to it than that. You know this but you're too far along the line now to admit it. People say I'm a troll, just because I disagree with them, right ? If people now accept that Ashley has been s****, and worse than the Halls and Shepherd, why not say so instead of continuing to attack the Halls and Shepherd for giving us our best league positions in 50 years, achieved because they backed their managers . If Ashley had backed Keegan, he would still be here and I have no doubt at all we would be pushing for a place in europe. Instead, he has gone and we are in the s***, because he didn't back his manager. Get some perspective. I don't want to patronise, but this is really so simple. Ive actually said that Shepherd was better than Ashley, even in Shepherds last few terrible years, but that doesnt get away from the fact he had lost the plot post 2004. they made a terrible appointment in Souness [which again, numerous people backed to succeed, and spend the money that he did], but it doesn't change the fact that their basic idea of how success is gained was correct. The basic idea in my opinion is appointing a good manager to spend that money. Whereas you think managerial success is down to luck. Liverpool ended up with Benitez, Villa with O'Neill, and we got Souness and Roeder. That isnt luck in my opinion. Well, it isn't you or me who chooses the managers. What do you think of Chelsea appointing Grant and Scolari and sacking them both after short periods ? Unlucky ? And what do you think of all the clubs who haven't qualified for europe as often as we did ? Unlucky ? Get real mate. Get some perspective. I'm not taking the piss, this is perspective. Nobody appoints winning managers all the time, its impossible, and I bet that when Wenger and Ferguson leave their respective clubs, mistakes will be made at those clubs too. Grant did ok and it was a mistake to sack him. Scolari wasnt really suited to the English game. They corrected their mistake quicker than we did with Souness and have managed to salvage their season. The sacking of Grant and the appointment of Scolari was a mistake though. It wasnt a mistake that set them back as much as Souness did us though. What about those clubs? Post 2004 weve only qualified for Europe once when we finished 7th. Im not critisising Shepherd record previous to that. I KEEP on telling you that. I am being real. Souness and Roeder were shocking appointments, not bad, shocking for a club of where we were. Nearly everybody could see that when they were appointed. It wasnt luck and took us from a team who were attempting to qualify for the Champions League to a team who were firmly in the bottom half of the table. The appointments were as bad as nearly anyone has made in the Prem. Sammy Lee and Chris Hutchings appart maybe. Shepherd had lost the plot at this stage. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 decent user gets banned, troll continues to pollute site. I take it you mean me, because I disagree with you ? Who is right and who is wrong then ? doh To me, the trolls are those who still defend Ashley and are still convinced the Halls and Shepherd were s****, surely the penny ought to have dropped by now. Anyway, tell you what mate, ignore me and I won't reply to you ? Do you just deliberatly ignore people and read what you want to read? I can't see anyone defending Ashley. You like to set this arguement up as Ashley v Shepherd, when it isnt that. Critisism of Shepherd is not automatically support for Ashley. If being a good chairman was as easy as spending the clubs money and borrowing to back your manager who is in charge purely because of luck, then most people would be able to do it. Theres alot more to it than that. You know this but you're too far along the line now to admit it. People say I'm a troll, just because I disagree with them, right ? If people now accept that Ashley has been s****, and worse than the Halls and Shepherd, why not say so instead of continuing to attack the Halls and Shepherd for giving us our best league positions in 50 years, achieved because they backed their managers . If Ashley had backed Keegan, he would still be here and I have no doubt at all we would be pushing for a place in europe. Instead, he has gone and we are in the s***, because he didn't back his manager. Get some perspective. I don't want to patronise, but this is really so simple. Ive actually said that Shepherd was better than Ashley, even in Shepherds last few terrible years, but that doesnt get away from the fact he had lost the plot post 2004. they made a terrible appointment in Souness [which again, numerous people backed to succeed, and spend the money that he did], but it doesn't change the fact that their basic idea of how success is gained was correct. The basic idea in my opinion is appointing a good manager to spend that money. Whereas you think managerial success is down to luck. Liverpool ended up with Benitez, Villa with O'Neill, and we got Souness and Roeder. That isnt luck in my opinion. Well, it isn't you or me who chooses the managers. What do you think of Chelsea appointing Grant and Scolari and sacking them both after short periods ? Unlucky ? And what do you think of all the clubs who haven't qualified for europe as often as we did ? Unlucky ? Get real mate. Get some perspective. I'm not taking the piss, this is perspective. Nobody appoints winning managers all the time, its impossible, and I bet that when Wenger and Ferguson leave their respective clubs, mistakes will be made at those clubs too. so you were ok with appointing kinnear ? not my decision. But he didn't back him, just like Keegan. He can appoint anybody he likes, but if he doesn't give him the tools to do the job properly, then it won't get done properly. where was this backing to come from ? if backing the manager doesn't work is it possible to keep on backing with the monies of others indefinitly ? (do you see what i did there ?) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now