Financial meltdown?

[J7]

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.

 

 

It won't get done properly if you appoint a shit manager either. Who is spending the money is as important giving them money.

[madras]

the more i look at it the problem got beyond control when the likes of emre,duff and parker came here. we were saying they'd come here because everton and spurs couldn't afford their wages..........turns out we couldn't either.

[NE5]

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.

 

 

It won't get done properly if you appoint a shit manager either. Who is spending the money is as important giving them money.

 

aye sure. Abramovic must be a right tit appointing someone like Scolari, how did they not get it right every time, just like everybody else does ?

 

Have you thought about sending an email to the owners of all the 87 clubs that didn't qualify for europe as oftern as we did telling them that they shouldn't be appointing the wrong manager so often ?

 

Sorry like, but there isn't any other way to get this message across.

 

 

 

 

[madras]

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.

 

 

It won't get done properly if you appoint a s*** manager either. Who is spending the money is as important giving them money.

 

aye sure. Abramovic must be a right tit appointing someone like Scolari, how did they not get it right every time, just like everybody else does ?

 

Have you thought about sending an email to the owners of all the 87 clubs that didn't qualify for europe as oftern as we did telling them that they shouldn't be appointing the wrong manager so often ?

 

Sorry like, but there isn't any other way to get this message across.

 

 

 

 

so it doesn't matter who you get in as manager and keep giving them more and more money to spend regardless of the financial position you are in ?

[J7]

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.

 

 

It won't get done properly if you appoint a s*** manager either. Who is spending the money is as important giving them money.

 

aye sure. Abramovic must be a right tit appointing someone like Scolari, how did they not get it right every time, just like everybody else does ?

 

Have you thought about sending an email to the owners of all the 87 clubs that didn't qualify for europe as oftern as we did telling them that they shouldn't be appointing the wrong manager so often ?

 

Sorry like, but there isn't any other way to get this message across.

He wasn't a 'right tit', but he made a mistake. He then sorted it out and appointed someone brilliant to replace him. Lets not kid ourselves though, Scolari was a far far better manager for Chelsea than Souness ever was for us. He still kept them in the top four when he was there. Souness destroyed us. People don't always get it right, but they don't get it much more wrong than Shepherd did. Not once, but twice with Roeder as well.

 

There are more than 4 clubs who have appeared more than us in Europe since 2004 by the way. And most of the 80 other odd didnt start off that period of time as the 5th best club in England.

[NE5]

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.

 

 

It won't get done properly if you appoint a s*** manager either. Who is spending the money is as important giving them money.

 

aye sure. Abramovic must be a right tit appointing someone like Scolari, how did they not get it right every time, just like everybody else does ?

 

Have you thought about sending an email to the owners of all the 87 clubs that didn't qualify for europe as oftern as we did telling them that they shouldn't be appointing the wrong manager so often ?

 

Sorry like, but there isn't any other way to get this message across.

He wasn't a 'right tit', but he made a mistake. He then sorted it out and appointed someone brilliant to replace him. Lets not kid ourselves though, Scolari was a far far better manager for Chelsea than Souness ever was for us. He still kept them in the top four when he was there. Souness destroyed us. People don't always get it right, but they don't get it much more wrong than Shepherd did. Not once, but twice with Roeder as well.

 

There are more than 4 clubs who have appeared more than us in Europe since 2004 by the way. And most of the 80 other odd didnt start off that period of time as the 5th best club in England.

 

you mean Abramovic made 2 mistakes, and didn't settle for mediocrity.

 

Unlike Mike Ashley, who will gladly take mid table mediocrity as a success ?

 

I'm not talking about 2004, if you do, you are cherry picking. Its like you saying that Shearer was shit for missing a couple of penalties. Clearly bollocks. Would you have replaced him with Ameobi on that basis ? Having said that, plenty of people said they would 

[Rich]

I'd prefer to say that he'd accept mid-table mediocrity as a necessary short-term evil. Much like Shepherd did when Robson was appointed? (When there was fuck all money available as well if I remember rightly.)

 

I think that has been the "plan" after he discovered the financial state of the place, however I cannot argue that it has gone absolutely tits up on more than one occasion.

 

If we go down he deserves all the shit that is headed in his direction, much like Freddy would have done. However, if Shearer keeps us up then I still think there is a decent possibility of a bright future under Ashley in the Premiership.

 

Can only hope for the best.

[Rich]

The general argument that Ashley doesn't have good intentions for this football club still bewilders me, by the way, and is still constantly glossed-over by all and sundry. There is no logic to spending the money he has on a club and then running it into the ground, none at all.

 

He's been naive and made mistakes, the ultimate one could be becoming the first man to get NUFC relegated from the Premiership, but I don't think anything has been done out of malice or spite. Ignorance, maybe. Not entirely unforgivable or irretrievable in my book, but then I'm a forgiving sort.

[Kitman]

Regarding the appointment of managers, I can't criticise most of them.  The one that stands out is Souness, which was met by bewilderment and dismay by most people (or hilarity for non-toon fans) and had disaster written all over it.

 

But I think NE5's basic point about this is valid, in that it's basically a lottery. Dalglish ticked all the boxes at the time and didn't work out, same as Big Phil at Chelsea.  Man Utd had any number of managers before Sir Alex and none delivered the league championship.  It's not that easy.  Most appointments are only truly rotten in hindsight.  Roeder looked all right for a time.  Gullit looked all right on paper.  And Allardyce.  And so on.

 

But the really important thing is who's available and who's prepared to come.  It's like making a list of players you'd like to sign;  if they don't fancy the job or their clubs won't sell them then it doesn't matter what offers you make.  Clubs like Liverpool and Chelsea are easy to sell to managers;  we're not as easy and it's getting harder all the time.  So it ain't as simple as saying 'Roeder was crap, why didn't we sign x,y,z' as manager?  For all we know FS tried his best to get in somebody better and just couldn't manage it.

 

FWIW, my main criticism of FS is his insistence on British managers and his lack of imagination.  That made for a pretty small pond to fish in imo.  That, and the signing of Souness which given the time it happened, the state of the club, and the opportunity that was there, has been absolutely pivotal in our decline imo.

[mrmojorisin75]

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.

 

 

It won't get done properly if you appoint a s*** manager either. Who is spending the money is as important giving them money.

 

aye sure. Abramovic must be a right tit appointing someone like Scolari, how did they not get it right every time, just like everybody else does ?

 

Have you thought about sending an email to the owners of all the 87 clubs that didn't qualify for europe as oftern as we did telling them that they shouldn't be appointing the wrong manager so often ?

 

Sorry like, but there isn't any other way to get this message across.

He wasn't a 'right tit', but he made a mistake. He then sorted it out and appointed someone brilliant to replace him. Lets not kid ourselves though, Scolari was a far far better manager for Chelsea than Souness ever was for us. He still kept them in the top four when he was there. Souness destroyed us. People don't always get it right, but they don't get it much more wrong than Shepherd did. Not once, but twice with Roeder as well.

 

There are more than 4 clubs who have appeared more than us in Europe since 2004 by the way. And most of the 80 other odd didnt start off that period of time as the 5th best club in England.

 

you mean Abramovic made 2 mistakes, and didn't settle for mediocrity.

 

Unlike Mike Ashley, who will gladly take mid table mediocrity as a success ?

 

I'm not talking about 2004, if you do, you are cherry picking. Its like you saying that Shearer was shit for missing a couple of penalties. Clearly bollocks. Would you have replaced him with Ameobi on that basis ? Having said that, plenty of people said they would 

 

i don't believe some of the stuff i'm reading here, i really don't, i bolded a couple though:

 

scolari was thrown out after a few months as abramovich thought he was going to take the club out of the top four, who knows how their season would have ended if he'd stayed? (either way)  what point are you trying to make here?

 

as for the NE5 part mike ashley has appointed 3 managers now, only one of whom to to date (keegan) was ostensibly intended to be a long term appointment, so was keegan the wrong guy?  and is shearer the wrong guy now?  is appointing shearer long term, imagining that's what happens, settling for mediocrity NE5?

 

why is everyone else excused mistakes and not mike ashley?  this summer will be 2 years of ownership of the club for him - shepherd and the board he headed made more than 2 years worth of mistakes in their time, souness accounting for that whole period essentially not discounting the roeder debacle and sacking robson etc...

 

you've an agenda man - i'm gonna be delighted if we scrape up this season, appoint shearer long term and he gets 20m a season to spend however the fuck he wants until the finances recover and that amount increases just to see where you go with it after that

 

chances are you're right, he's a dick and will fuck it up again this summer but shearer is the guy standing there saying "they've learned from the their mistakes" so we'll see won't we?

[oldtype]

NE5 either has learning disabilities or is purely here to wind people up.

 

This is the answer folks. The faster everyone realizes it the less threads get hijacked.

[J7]

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.

 

 

It won't get done properly if you appoint a s*** manager either. Who is spending the money is as important giving them money.

 

aye sure. Abramovic must be a right tit appointing someone like Scolari, how did they not get it right every time, just like everybody else does ?

 

Have you thought about sending an email to the owners of all the 87 clubs that didn't qualify for europe as oftern as we did telling them that they shouldn't be appointing the wrong manager so often ?

 

Sorry like, but there isn't any other way to get this message across.

He wasn't a 'right tit', but he made a mistake. He then sorted it out and appointed someone brilliant to replace him. Lets not kid ourselves though, Scolari was a far far better manager for Chelsea than Souness ever was for us. He still kept them in the top four when he was there. Souness destroyed us. People don't always get it right, but they don't get it much more wrong than Shepherd did. Not once, but twice with Roeder as well.

 

There are more than 4 clubs who have appeared more than us in Europe since 2004 by the way. And most of the 80 other odd didnt start off that period of time as the 5th best club in England.

 

you mean Abramovic made 2 mistakes, and didn't settle for mediocrity.

 

Unlike Mike Ashley, who will gladly take mid table mediocrity as a success ?

 

I'm not talking about 2004, if you do, you are cherry picking. Its like you saying that Shearer was s*** for missing a couple of penalties. Clearly bollocks. Would you have replaced him with Ameobi on that basis ? Having said that, plenty of people said they would 

His mistakes were no where near as bad as Shepherds though and Chelsea still sit in roughly the same place.

 

Im not defending Ashley so no idea why you brought him up.

 

Its not cherry picking atall. Ive stated over and over that Shepherd lost the plot. You don't seem to understand the simple concept of someone losing the plot. People can be good, then lose the plot. You just can't seem to understand this. Its ridiculous.

 

I fully expect a reply which mentions something from before Shepherd lost the plot, or something about Ashley both of which are totally irrelevant to my points.

[Kitman]

I should've known it was pointless posting in this thread 

[mrmojorisin75]

I should've known it was pointless posting in this thread 

 

really is yeah

[Guest toonlass]

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.

 

 

It won't get done properly if you appoint a s*** manager either. Who is spending the money is as important giving them money.

 

aye sure. Abramovic must be a right tit appointing someone like Scolari, how did they not get it right every time, just like everybody else does ?

 

Have you thought about sending an email to the owners of all the 87 clubs that didn't qualify for europe as oftern as we did telling them that they shouldn't be appointing the wrong manager so often ?

 

Sorry like, but there isn't any other way to get this message across.

He wasn't a 'right tit', but he made a mistake. He then sorted it out and appointed someone brilliant to replace him. Lets not kid ourselves though, Scolari was a far far better manager for Chelsea than Souness ever was for us. He still kept them in the top four when he was there. Souness destroyed us. People don't always get it right, but they don't get it much more wrong than Shepherd did. Not once, but twice with Roeder as well.

 

There are more than 4 clubs who have appeared more than us in Europe since 2004 by the way. And most of the 80 other odd didnt start off that period of time as the 5th best club in England.

 

you mean Abramovic made 2 mistakes, and didn't settle for mediocrity.

 

Unlike Mike Ashley, who will gladly take mid table mediocrity as a success ?

 

I'm not talking about 2004, if you do, you are cherry picking. Its like you saying that Shearer was shit for missing a couple of penalties. Clearly bollocks. Would you have replaced him with Ameobi on that basis ? Having said that, plenty of people said they would 

 

If you are ignoring post 2003 then surely you are cherry picking.

[dcmk]

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.

 

You are telling me that Roeder didnt deserve an extended contract after going on an unbelievable run??  Have a think to yourself, if Shepherd did bring in someone different, after Roeder did all that, in the summer, new guy - big name but fails.  Our fans looking in hindsight (again wonderful thing) would criticize Shepherd for not sticking with Roeder - as he did have very, very good results. 

 

He deserved his chance.  He brought European football and his buys weren't bad.  Not a too bad appointment, Souness was the one that really damaged us.

[NE5]

NE5 either has learning disabilities or is purely here to wind people up.

 

This is the answer folks. The faster everyone realizes it the less threads get hijacked.

 

wound up by the truth and facts are you ?

 

 

[NE5]

as was pointed out elsewhere. Board backs chosen manager to the very best of their ability to set the highest standards possible, in keeping with one of the biggest clubs in the country = good board. I take it we are pretty much mostly agreed that we ARE one of the biggest clubs in the country ? [so regarding premiership survival should not be regarded as success and should demand the club performs to its capability]

 

So simple. So straightforward, and yet its so difficult for some it generates all of this, including me being branded a troll for saying it.

 

Amazing. Quite amazing.

 

 

[Dave]

Trolling isn't stating facts or your opinion.

 

Trolling (amongst other things) is making up what others say and think in order to get a reaction.

 

You seem highly skilled at the latter.

[NE5]

Trolling isn't stating facts or your opinion.

 

Trolling (amongst other things) is making up what others say and think in order to get a reaction.

 

You seem highly skilled at the latter.

 

examples ?

 

Remember, Toonlass, Blefescu made up something about me the other day ..... hot on the heels of accusing me of doing precisely the same thing when I hadn't.

 

My last post is still correct, and how I see it Dave.

 

None of the quotes in my sig are made up either BTW

 

 

[Dave]

About a hundred examples throughout this very thread.

 

You accuse anyone who feels Shepherd lost the plot of defending Ashley in almost every post.

[NE5]

About a hundred examples throughout this very thread.

 

You accuse anyone who feels Shepherd lost the plot as defending Ashley in almost every post.

 

No I don't. I just think - and point out - that they STILL don't appreciate the Halls and Shepherd were good owners, among the best in the country.

 

Basically, despite making some mistakes [which I've said] I disagree that someone can "lose the plot" when they still have the right way of going about something. The same way of running the club which gave us regular european competition, and as such set up the level of expectancy which people like yourself and your own age quite understandably have came to expect.

 

 

 

[J7]

When someone mentions Shepherds last few years you ask questions about Ashley as if the people critisising Shepherd are in turn sticking up for Ashley. That's a perfect example amoung many.

[Guest toonlass]

Trolling isn't stating facts or your opinion.

 

Trolling (amongst other things) is making up what others say and think in order to get a reaction.

 

You seem highly skilled at the latter.

 

examples ?

 

Remember, Toonlass, Blefescu made up something about me the other day ..... hot on the heels of accusing me of doing precisely the same thing when I hadn't.

 

My last post is still correct, and how I see it Dave.

 

None of the quotes in my sig are made up either BTW

 

 

 

That is wrong and you know it. You have continually made insinuations about me and how long I have been going to the games. You could also attempt to spell my user name right too.

 

For your information I have enclosed a link which explains what being a troll on the internet is. This makes no insinuation that anyone is one on here, its just to clear up any misunderstandings on what a troll may be.

 

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trolling

[Guest toonlass]

When someone mentions Shepherds last few years you ask questions about Ashley as if the people critisising Shepherd are in turn sticking up for Ashley. That's a perfect example amoung many.

 

Exactly. Just because some of us believe that Fred Shepherd and Sir John Hall had lost control of the finances by the end of their tenure, and had already caused us problems, doesn't mean that we are supporters of Ashley. The situations are not mutually exclusive.