NE5 Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Just a quick question for NE5, Without referring to other clubs, was Roeder and Allerdyce ambitious management appointments and why? now then toonlass........are you aware that Allardyce was touted as an England manager when we appointed him ? Is that ambitious enough for you ? Or are you a hindsight person, or even a Keegan bandwagon jumper that thinks mediocrity is halfway in the premiership ? Which asks the question. If the previous board were so shite, how come the people before and after them got nowhere near matching them, despite the Halls and Shepherd having so little ambition in comparison ? Oy Leazes, was it ambitious to appoint Roeder and Allardyce? oy toonlass, everybody appoints winning and ambitous managers every time, especially managers in the frame to manage England, didn't you know, including all those 87 teams who didn't qualify for europe as often as we did Ok Leazes what do you notice about this list then Everton Portsmouth Sheffield Wednesday Aston Villa Leicester City Spurs Middlesbrough Blackburn eer.....none of them have qualified for europe as often as we did under the Halls and Shepherd ? Is that your final answer? I don't need to phone a friend How about they all managed to win a cup that we would have loved to have won, since 1991? Doesn't matter how many times we qualified for Europe, I would trade in every single european night we had to have what they got. NE5, you are the weakest link. Goodbye! so who do you blame for not even winning the league cup, as we have clearly had a better team than most of that lot for the vast majority of the period between 1992-2007 ? who do you blame? Well, as the board had done their job and provided their managers with good enough players, its fairly obvious, provided you don't have your head up your arse. Ahhh right. So they were not good enough to win us a trophy but they were "good enough". Got ya. thought you knew your football It means the players didn't perform on the day, on a number of occasions. The fact that inferior teams have won such cups should also tell you....... Unlucky to play the champions in 2 FA Cup Finals though. Is this a serious debate or are you just putting your paranoid hat on again ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Just a quick question for NE5, Without referring to other clubs, was Roeder and Allerdyce ambitious management appointments and why? now then toonlass........are you aware that Allardyce was touted as an England manager when we appointed him ? Is that ambitious enough for you ? Or are you a hindsight person, or even a Keegan bandwagon jumper that thinks mediocrity is halfway in the premiership ? Which asks the question. If the previous board were so shite, how come the people before and after them got nowhere near matching them, despite the Halls and Shepherd having so little ambition in comparison ? Oy Leazes, was it ambitious to appoint Roeder and Allardyce? oy toonlass, everybody appoints winning and ambitous managers every time, especially managers in the frame to manage England, didn't you know, including all those 87 teams who didn't qualify for europe as often as we did Ok Leazes what do you notice about this list then Everton Portsmouth Sheffield Wednesday Aston Villa Leicester City Spurs Middlesbrough Blackburn eer.....none of them have qualified for europe as often as we did under the Halls and Shepherd ? Is that your final answer? I don't need to phone a friend How about they all managed to win a cup that we would have loved to have won, since 1991? Doesn't matter how many times we qualified for Europe, I would trade in every single european night we had to have what they got. NE5, you are the weakest link. Goodbye! http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/cerkir/anniepoos.jpg You'd really trade the last 18 years with Sheff Weds, Leicester, 'Boro and Portsmouth? No but I would trade all the nights in Europe for 1 cup tbh. http://www.magnitude.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/cake.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Just a quick question for NE5, Without referring to other clubs, was Roeder and Allerdyce ambitious management appointments and why? now then toonlass........are you aware that Allardyce was touted as an England manager when we appointed him ? Is that ambitious enough for you ? Or are you a hindsight person, or even a Keegan bandwagon jumper that thinks mediocrity is halfway in the premiership ? Which asks the question. If the previous board were so shite, how come the people before and after them got nowhere near matching them, despite the Halls and Shepherd having so little ambition in comparison ? Oy Leazes, was it ambitious to appoint Roeder and Allardyce? oy toonlass, everybody appoints winning and ambitous managers every time, especially managers in the frame to manage England, didn't you know, including all those 87 teams who didn't qualify for europe as often as we did Ok Leazes what do you notice about this list then Everton Portsmouth Sheffield Wednesday Aston Villa Leicester City Spurs Middlesbrough Blackburn eer.....none of them have qualified for europe as often as we did under the Halls and Shepherd ? Is that your final answer? I don't need to phone a friend How about they all managed to win a cup that we would have loved to have won, since 1991? Doesn't matter how many times we qualified for Europe, I would trade in every single european night we had to have what they got. NE5, you are the weakest link. Goodbye! so who do you blame for not even winning the league cup, as we have clearly had a better team than most of that lot for the vast majority of the period between 1992-2007 ? who do you blame? Well, as the board had done their job and provided their managers with good enough players, its fairly obvious, provided you don't have your head up your arse. Ahhh right. So they were not good enough to win us a trophy but they were "good enough". Got ya. thought you knew your football It means the players didn't perform on the day, on a number of occasions. The fact that inferior teams have won such cups should also tell you....... Unlucky to play the champions in 2 FA Cup Finals though. Is this a serious debate or are you just putting your paranoid hat on again ? Do you know what paranoid means? Would you prefer us to have been in Europe all those times by being 2nd, 3rd, 4th or even lower or to have won a cup? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Just a quick question for NE5, Without referring to other clubs, was Roeder and Allerdyce ambitious management appointments and why? now then toonlass........are you aware that Allardyce was touted as an England manager when we appointed him ? Is that ambitious enough for you ? Or are you a hindsight person, or even a Keegan bandwagon jumper that thinks mediocrity is halfway in the premiership ? Which asks the question. If the previous board were so shite, how come the people before and after them got nowhere near matching them, despite the Halls and Shepherd having so little ambition in comparison ? Oy Leazes, was it ambitious to appoint Roeder and Allardyce? oy toonlass, everybody appoints winning and ambitous managers every time, especially managers in the frame to manage England, didn't you know, including all those 87 teams who didn't qualify for europe as often as we did Ok Leazes what do you notice about this list then Everton Portsmouth Sheffield Wednesday Aston Villa Leicester City Spurs Middlesbrough Blackburn eer.....none of them have qualified for europe as often as we did under the Halls and Shepherd ? Is that your final answer? I don't need to phone a friend How about they all managed to win a cup that we would have loved to have won, since 1991? Doesn't matter how many times we qualified for Europe, I would trade in every single european night we had to have what they got. NE5, you are the weakest link. Goodbye! http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/cerkir/anniepoos.jpg You'd really trade the last 18 years with Sheff Weds, Leicester, 'Boro and Portsmouth? No but I would trade all the nights in Europe for 1 cup tbh. http://www.magnitude.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/cake.jpg And this means what exactly? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Just a quick question for NE5, Without referring to other clubs, was Roeder and Allerdyce ambitious management appointments and why? now then toonlass........are you aware that Allardyce was touted as an England manager when we appointed him ? Is that ambitious enough for you ? Or are you a hindsight person, or even a Keegan bandwagon jumper that thinks mediocrity is halfway in the premiership ? Which asks the question. If the previous board were so shite, how come the people before and after them got nowhere near matching them, despite the Halls and Shepherd having so little ambition in comparison ? Oy Leazes, was it ambitious to appoint Roeder and Allardyce? oy toonlass, everybody appoints winning and ambitous managers every time, especially managers in the frame to manage England, didn't you know, including all those 87 teams who didn't qualify for europe as often as we did Ok Leazes what do you notice about this list then Everton Portsmouth Sheffield Wednesday Aston Villa Leicester City Spurs Middlesbrough Blackburn eer.....none of them have qualified for europe as often as we did under the Halls and Shepherd ? Is that your final answer? I don't need to phone a friend How about they all managed to win a cup that we would have loved to have won, since 1991? Doesn't matter how many times we qualified for Europe, I would trade in every single european night we had to have what they got. NE5, you are the weakest link. Goodbye! so who do you blame for not even winning the league cup, as we have clearly had a better team than most of that lot for the vast majority of the period between 1992-2007 ? who do you blame? Well, as the board had done their job and provided their managers with good enough players, its fairly obvious, provided you don't have your head up your arse. Ahhh right. So they were not good enough to win us a trophy but they were "good enough". Got ya. thought you knew your football It means the players didn't perform on the day, on a number of occasions. The fact that inferior teams have won such cups should also tell you....... Unlucky to play the champions in 2 FA Cup Finals though. Is this a serious debate or are you just putting your paranoid hat on again ? Do you know what paranoid means? Would you prefer us to have been in Europe all those times by being 2nd, 3rd, 4th or even lower or to have won a cup? aaahhh.......if it were only so simple I would have preferred to have played Tranmere in a Cup Final instead of ManU. I'm sure you won't understand this though. I expect you will blame Shepherd for that too Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 I'd pick playing in the Champions League over winning the FA Cup any day of the week. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Just a quick question for NE5, Without referring to other clubs, was Roeder and Allerdyce ambitious management appointments and why? now then toonlass........are you aware that Allardyce was touted as an England manager when we appointed him ? Is that ambitious enough for you ? Or are you a hindsight person, or even a Keegan bandwagon jumper that thinks mediocrity is halfway in the premiership ? Which asks the question. If the previous board were so shite, how come the people before and after them got nowhere near matching them, despite the Halls and Shepherd having so little ambition in comparison ? Oy Leazes, was it ambitious to appoint Roeder and Allardyce? oy toonlass, everybody appoints winning and ambitous managers every time, especially managers in the frame to manage England, didn't you know, including all those 87 teams who didn't qualify for europe as often as we did Ok Leazes what do you notice about this list then Everton Portsmouth Sheffield Wednesday Aston Villa Leicester City Spurs Middlesbrough Blackburn eer.....none of them have qualified for europe as often as we did under the Halls and Shepherd ? Is that your final answer? I don't need to phone a friend How about they all managed to win a cup that we would have loved to have won, since 1991? Doesn't matter how many times we qualified for Europe, I would trade in every single european night we had to have what they got. NE5, you are the weakest link. Goodbye! so who do you blame for not even winning the league cup, as we have clearly had a better team than most of that lot for the vast majority of the period between 1992-2007 ? who do you blame? Well, as the board had done their job and provided their managers with good enough players, its fairly obvious, provided you don't have your head up your arse. Ahhh right. So they were not good enough to win us a trophy but they were "good enough". Got ya. thought you knew your football It means the players didn't perform on the day, on a number of occasions. The fact that inferior teams have won such cups should also tell you....... Unlucky to play the champions in 2 FA Cup Finals though. Is this a serious debate or are you just putting your paranoid hat on again ? Do you know what paranoid means? Would you prefer us to have been in Europe all those times by being 2nd, 3rd, 4th or even lower or to have won a cup? aaahhh.......if it were only so simple I would have preferred to have played Tranmere in a Cup Final instead of ManU. I'm sure you won't understand this though. I expect you will blame Shepherd for that too No I wouldn't. Why wouldn't I understand that you would have preferred to play Tranmere rather than Manchester United? Is that meant to be derogatory? Again, another question you have failed to answer. Would you have given up all the European nights if you could have seen us win one cup? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 I'd pick playing in the Champions League over winning the FA Cup any day of the week. bloody hell! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Just a quick question for NE5, Without referring to other clubs, was Roeder and Allerdyce ambitious management appointments and why? now then toonlass........are you aware that Allardyce was touted as an England manager when we appointed him ? Is that ambitious enough for you ? Or are you a hindsight person, or even a Keegan bandwagon jumper that thinks mediocrity is halfway in the premiership ? Which asks the question. If the previous board were so shite, how come the people before and after them got nowhere near matching them, despite the Halls and Shepherd having so little ambition in comparison ? Oy Leazes, was it ambitious to appoint Roeder and Allardyce? oy toonlass, everybody appoints winning and ambitous managers every time, especially managers in the frame to manage England, didn't you know, including all those 87 teams who didn't qualify for europe as often as we did Ok Leazes what do you notice about this list then Everton Portsmouth Sheffield Wednesday Aston Villa Leicester City Spurs Middlesbrough Blackburn eer.....none of them have qualified for europe as often as we did under the Halls and Shepherd ? Is that your final answer? I don't need to phone a friend How about they all managed to win a cup that we would have loved to have won, since 1991? Doesn't matter how many times we qualified for Europe, I would trade in every single european night we had to have what they got. NE5, you are the weakest link. Goodbye! so who do you blame for not even winning the league cup, as we have clearly had a better team than most of that lot for the vast majority of the period between 1992-2007 ? who do you blame? Well, as the board had done their job and provided their managers with good enough players, its fairly obvious, provided you don't have your head up your arse. Ahhh right. So they were not good enough to win us a trophy but they were "good enough". Got ya. thought you knew your football It means the players didn't perform on the day, on a number of occasions. The fact that inferior teams have won such cups should also tell you....... Unlucky to play the champions in 2 FA Cup Finals though. Is this a serious debate or are you just putting your paranoid hat on again ? Do you know what paranoid means? Would you prefer us to have been in Europe all those times by being 2nd, 3rd, 4th or even lower or to have won a cup? aaahhh.......if it were only so simple I would have preferred to have played Tranmere in a Cup Final instead of ManU. I'm sure you won't understand this though. I expect you will blame Shepherd for that too No I wouldn't. Why wouldn't I understand that you would have preferred to play Tranmere rather than Manchester United? Is that meant to be derogatory? Again, another question you have failed to answer. Would you have given up all the European nights if you could have seen us win one cup? I'm not sure, but what has that got to do with blaming Shepherd for the players not beating manu or Arsenal in a Cup Final ? Which you are clearly angling at ....... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Just a quick question for NE5, Without referring to other clubs, was Roeder and Allerdyce ambitious management appointments and why? now then toonlass........are you aware that Allardyce was touted as an England manager when we appointed him ? Is that ambitious enough for you ? Or are you a hindsight person, or even a Keegan bandwagon jumper that thinks mediocrity is halfway in the premiership ? Which asks the question. If the previous board were so shite, how come the people before and after them got nowhere near matching them, despite the Halls and Shepherd having so little ambition in comparison ? Oy Leazes, was it ambitious to appoint Roeder and Allardyce? oy toonlass, everybody appoints winning and ambitous managers every time, especially managers in the frame to manage England, didn't you know, including all those 87 teams who didn't qualify for europe as often as we did Ok Leazes what do you notice about this list then Everton Portsmouth Sheffield Wednesday Aston Villa Leicester City Spurs Middlesbrough Blackburn eer.....none of them have qualified for europe as often as we did under the Halls and Shepherd ? Is that your final answer? I don't need to phone a friend How about they all managed to win a cup that we would have loved to have won, since 1991? Doesn't matter how many times we qualified for Europe, I would trade in every single european night we had to have what they got. NE5, you are the weakest link. Goodbye! so who do you blame for not even winning the league cup, as we have clearly had a better team than most of that lot for the vast majority of the period between 1992-2007 ? who do you blame? Well, as the board had done their job and provided their managers with good enough players, its fairly obvious, provided you don't have your head up your arse. Ahhh right. So they were not good enough to win us a trophy but they were "good enough". Got ya. thought you knew your football It means the players didn't perform on the day, on a number of occasions. The fact that inferior teams have won such cups should also tell you....... Unlucky to play the champions in 2 FA Cup Finals though. Is this a serious debate or are you just putting your paranoid hat on again ? Do you know what paranoid means? Would you prefer us to have been in Europe all those times by being 2nd, 3rd, 4th or even lower or to have won a cup? aaahhh.......if it were only so simple I would have preferred to have played Tranmere in a Cup Final instead of ManU. I'm sure you won't understand this though. I expect you will blame Shepherd for that too No I wouldn't. Why wouldn't I understand that you would have preferred to play Tranmere rather than Manchester United? Is that meant to be derogatory? Again, another question you have failed to answer. Would you have given up all the European nights if you could have seen us win one cup? I'm not sure, but what has that got to do with blaming Shepherd for the players not beating manu or Arsenal in a Cup Final ? Which you are clearly angling at ....... Well you keep going on about Europe and how often we have been there, I am simply asking you if you would have given up the European nights for one cup. That's not too difficult to understand is it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 I'd pick playing in the Champions League over winning the FA Cup any day of the week. bloody hell! I'm with Apisith on this. A cup is one day, a pot for the trophey room and not a lot else. Give me the memories of PSV 2-3 Toon, Inter 2-2 Toon, Toon 3-2 Barca any day over winning one league or even FA Cup. I'm not even all that arsed about winning the league, again its a tin pot. The European adventure that comes with finishing second would/did replace any dejection in not being champions. We wouldn't even be able to gloat about winning a cup. All that would happen is 'no trophey in x years', becomes 'only one trophey in x years'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 I'd pick playing in the Champions League over winning the FA Cup any day of the week. bloody hell! I'm with Apisith on this. A cup is one day, a pot for the trophey room and not a lot else. Give me the memories of PSV 2-3 Toon, Inter 2-2 Toon, Toon 3-2 Barca any day over winning one league or even FA Cup. I'm not even all that arsed about winning the league, again its a tin pot. The European adventure that comes with finishing second would/did replace any dejection in not being champions. We wouldn't even be able to gloat about winning a cup. All that would happen is 'no trophey in x years', becomes 'only one trophey in x years'. Eh? :yikes: I would be passed myself if we won a cup. Jeez, I am sure it would beat the shite out of coming 4th in the league and qualifying for Europe. I can only imagine that winning a cup is like the day we beat Man U 5-0 but on acid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Just a quick question for NE5, Without referring to other clubs, was Roeder and Allerdyce ambitious management appointments and why? now then toonlass........are you aware that Allardyce was touted as an England manager when we appointed him ? Is that ambitious enough for you ? Or are you a hindsight person, or even a Keegan bandwagon jumper that thinks mediocrity is halfway in the premiership ? Which asks the question. If the previous board were so shite, how come the people before and after them got nowhere near matching them, despite the Halls and Shepherd having so little ambition in comparison ? Oy Leazes, was it ambitious to appoint Roeder and Allardyce? oy toonlass, everybody appoints winning and ambitous managers every time, especially managers in the frame to manage England, didn't you know, including all those 87 teams who didn't qualify for europe as often as we did Ok Leazes what do you notice about this list then Everton Portsmouth Sheffield Wednesday Aston Villa Leicester City Spurs Middlesbrough Blackburn eer.....none of them have qualified for europe as often as we did under the Halls and Shepherd ? Is that your final answer? I don't need to phone a friend How about they all managed to win a cup that we would have loved to have won, since 1991? Doesn't matter how many times we qualified for Europe, I would trade in every single european night we had to have what they got. NE5, you are the weakest link. Goodbye! so who do you blame for not even winning the league cup, as we have clearly had a better team than most of that lot for the vast majority of the period between 1992-2007 ? who do you blame? Well, as the board had done their job and provided their managers with good enough players, its fairly obvious, provided you don't have your head up your arse. Ahhh right. So they were not good enough to win us a trophy but they were "good enough". Got ya. thought you knew your football It means the players didn't perform on the day, on a number of occasions. The fact that inferior teams have won such cups should also tell you....... Unlucky to play the champions in 2 FA Cup Finals though. Is this a serious debate or are you just putting your paranoid hat on again ? Do you know what paranoid means? Would you prefer us to have been in Europe all those times by being 2nd, 3rd, 4th or even lower or to have won a cup? aaahhh.......if it were only so simple I would have preferred to have played Tranmere in a Cup Final instead of ManU. I'm sure you won't understand this though. I expect you will blame Shepherd for that too No I wouldn't. Why wouldn't I understand that you would have preferred to play Tranmere rather than Manchester United? Is that meant to be derogatory? Again, another question you have failed to answer. Would you have given up all the European nights if you could have seen us win one cup? I'm not sure, but what has that got to do with blaming Shepherd for the players not beating manu or Arsenal in a Cup Final ? Which you are clearly angling at ....... Well you keep going on about Europe and how often we have been there, I am simply asking you if you would have given up the European nights for one cup. That's not too difficult to understand is it? I'm just pointing out what the old board achieved to people who label them "shit". They backed their managers and in turn we had some quality teams more than capable of winning a trophy. What more can they do ? After that its out of their hands come the day of the big games. Thats not too difficult to understand is it ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Just a quick question for NE5, Without referring to other clubs, was Roeder and Allerdyce ambitious management appointments and why? now then toonlass........are you aware that Allardyce was touted as an England manager when we appointed him ? Is that ambitious enough for you ? Or are you a hindsight person, or even a Keegan bandwagon jumper that thinks mediocrity is halfway in the premiership ? Which asks the question. If the previous board were so shite, how come the people before and after them got nowhere near matching them, despite the Halls and Shepherd having so little ambition in comparison ? Oy Leazes, was it ambitious to appoint Roeder and Allardyce? oy toonlass, everybody appoints winning and ambitous managers every time, especially managers in the frame to manage England, didn't you know, including all those 87 teams who didn't qualify for europe as often as we did Ok Leazes what do you notice about this list then Everton Portsmouth Sheffield Wednesday Aston Villa Leicester City Spurs Middlesbrough Blackburn eer.....none of them have qualified for europe as often as we did under the Halls and Shepherd ? Is that your final answer? I don't need to phone a friend How about they all managed to win a cup that we would have loved to have won, since 1991? Doesn't matter how many times we qualified for Europe, I would trade in every single european night we had to have what they got. NE5, you are the weakest link. Goodbye! so who do you blame for not even winning the league cup, as we have clearly had a better team than most of that lot for the vast majority of the period between 1992-2007 ? who do you blame? Well, as the board had done their job and provided their managers with good enough players, its fairly obvious, provided you don't have your head up your arse. Ahhh right. So they were not good enough to win us a trophy but they were "good enough". Got ya. thought you knew your football It means the players didn't perform on the day, on a number of occasions. The fact that inferior teams have won such cups should also tell you....... Unlucky to play the champions in 2 FA Cup Finals though. Is this a serious debate or are you just putting your paranoid hat on again ? Do you know what paranoid means? Would you prefer us to have been in Europe all those times by being 2nd, 3rd, 4th or even lower or to have won a cup? aaahhh.......if it were only so simple I would have preferred to have played Tranmere in a Cup Final instead of ManU. I'm sure you won't understand this though. I expect you will blame Shepherd for that too No I wouldn't. Why wouldn't I understand that you would have preferred to play Tranmere rather than Manchester United? Is that meant to be derogatory? Again, another question you have failed to answer. Would you have given up all the European nights if you could have seen us win one cup? I'm not sure, but what has that got to do with blaming Shepherd for the players not beating manu or Arsenal in a Cup Final ? Which you are clearly angling at ....... Well you keep going on about Europe and how often we have been there, I am simply asking you if you would have given up the European nights for one cup. That's not too difficult to understand is it? I'm just pointing out what the old board achieved to people who label them "shit". They backed their managers and in turn we had some quality teams more than capable of winning a trophy. What more can they do ? After that its out of their hands come the day of the big games. Thats not too difficult to understand is it ? Care to show me where I said that? Still no answer to the questions I have asked then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowen Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 It's hard to pick between swapping all of our European nights for winning a cup. Being in Europe for a number of years implies that you're regularly watching a very good team playing exciting football and winning a lot of games. Winning a cup could be a complete fluke - look at Pompey - and as fantastic as it would be might be the one glimmer of light in amongst the garbage. I don't think it's as simple as saying 'I'd swap all the nights in Europe for one cup' - hence me (somewhat facetiously, granted) asking if you'd swap the last 18 years with Sheff Weds etc. It's more heavily layered, and involves the bigger picture of what's happening at the club. Goes without saying it'd be beyond amazing if we won something btw. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Just a quick question for NE5, Without referring to other clubs, was Roeder and Allerdyce ambitious management appointments and why? now then toonlass........are you aware that Allardyce was touted as an England manager when we appointed him ? Is that ambitious enough for you ? Or are you a hindsight person, or even a Keegan bandwagon jumper that thinks mediocrity is halfway in the premiership ? Which asks the question. If the previous board were so shite, how come the people before and after them got nowhere near matching them, despite the Halls and Shepherd having so little ambition in comparison ? Oy Leazes, was it ambitious to appoint Roeder and Allardyce? oy toonlass, everybody appoints winning and ambitous managers every time, especially managers in the frame to manage England, didn't you know, including all those 87 teams who didn't qualify for europe as often as we did Ok Leazes what do you notice about this list then Everton Portsmouth Sheffield Wednesday Aston Villa Leicester City Spurs Middlesbrough Blackburn eer.....none of them have qualified for europe as often as we did under the Halls and Shepherd ? Is that your final answer? I don't need to phone a friend How about they all managed to win a cup that we would have loved to have won, since 1991? Doesn't matter how many times we qualified for Europe, I would trade in every single european night we had to have what they got. NE5, you are the weakest link. Goodbye! so who do you blame for not even winning the league cup, as we have clearly had a better team than most of that lot for the vast majority of the period between 1992-2007 ? who do you blame? Well, as the board had done their job and provided their managers with good enough players, its fairly obvious, provided you don't have your head up your arse. Ahhh right. So they were not good enough to win us a trophy but they were "good enough". Got ya. thought you knew your football It means the players didn't perform on the day, on a number of occasions. The fact that inferior teams have won such cups should also tell you....... Unlucky to play the champions in 2 FA Cup Finals though. Is this a serious debate or are you just putting your paranoid hat on again ? Do you know what paranoid means? Would you prefer us to have been in Europe all those times by being 2nd, 3rd, 4th or even lower or to have won a cup? aaahhh.......if it were only so simple I would have preferred to have played Tranmere in a Cup Final instead of ManU. I'm sure you won't understand this though. I expect you will blame Shepherd for that too No I wouldn't. Why wouldn't I understand that you would have preferred to play Tranmere rather than Manchester United? Is that meant to be derogatory? Again, another question you have failed to answer. Would you have given up all the European nights if you could have seen us win one cup? I'm not sure, but what has that got to do with blaming Shepherd for the players not beating manu or Arsenal in a Cup Final ? Which you are clearly angling at ....... Well you keep going on about Europe and how often we have been there, I am simply asking you if you would have given up the European nights for one cup. That's not too difficult to understand is it? I'm just pointing out what the old board achieved to people who label them "shit". They backed their managers and in turn we had some quality teams more than capable of winning a trophy. What more can they do ? After that its out of their hands come the day of the big games. Thats not too difficult to understand is it ? Care to show me where I said that? Still no answer to the questions I have asked then? well, stop arguing with me when I correctly point out how well they did then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 It's hard to pick between swapping all of our European nights for winning a cup. Being in Europe for a number of years implies that you're regularly watching a very good team playing exciting football and winning a lot of games. Winning a cup could be a complete fluke - look at Pompey - and as fantastic as it would be might be the one glimmer of light in amongst the garbage. I don't think it's as simple as saying 'I'd swap all the nights in Europe for one cup' - hence me (somewhat facetiously, granted) asking if you'd swap the last 18 years with Sheff Weds etc. It's more heavily layered, and involves the bigger picture of what's happening at the club. Goes without saying it'd be beyond amazing if we won something btw. Exactly. I'd rather play in the CL because the measure of any team is how it performs in the league. If we're good in the league, we'd qualify for the CL. There's no other way. You can't fluke your way into the CL, but you can definitely fluke your way into winning a cup like the FA Cup or the League Cup. Playing in the CL also enhances your chances of winning other, more meaningful trophies and enables you to compete in the long-run for every trophy. Winning an FA Cup will be magical for that one day, and maybe the magic will last until we're inevitably knocked out by a better team in the next season, but consistently playing in the CL will mean so much more for the club's long-term chances. The goal, for any club, has to be consistently challenging for trophies and performing well in the league. That's why I'd easily and without doubt forgo winning the FA Cup if it meant that we'd get to play in the CL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Just a quick question for NE5, Without referring to other clubs, was Roeder and Allerdyce ambitious management appointments and why? now then toonlass........are you aware that Allardyce was touted as an England manager when we appointed him ? Is that ambitious enough for you ? Or are you a hindsight person, or even a Keegan bandwagon jumper that thinks mediocrity is halfway in the premiership ? Which asks the question. If the previous board were so shite, how come the people before and after them got nowhere near matching them, despite the Halls and Shepherd having so little ambition in comparison ? Oy Leazes, was it ambitious to appoint Roeder and Allardyce? oy toonlass, everybody appoints winning and ambitous managers every time, especially managers in the frame to manage England, didn't you know, including all those 87 teams who didn't qualify for europe as often as we did Ok Leazes what do you notice about this list then Everton Portsmouth Sheffield Wednesday Aston Villa Leicester City Spurs Middlesbrough Blackburn eer.....none of them have qualified for europe as often as we did under the Halls and Shepherd ? Is that your final answer? I don't need to phone a friend How about they all managed to win a cup that we would have loved to have won, since 1991? Doesn't matter how many times we qualified for Europe, I would trade in every single european night we had to have what they got. NE5, you are the weakest link. Goodbye! so who do you blame for not even winning the league cup, as we have clearly had a better team than most of that lot for the vast majority of the period between 1992-2007 ? who do you blame? Well, as the board had done their job and provided their managers with good enough players, its fairly obvious, provided you don't have your head up your arse. Ahhh right. So they were not good enough to win us a trophy but they were "good enough". Got ya. thought you knew your football It means the players didn't perform on the day, on a number of occasions. The fact that inferior teams have won such cups should also tell you....... Unlucky to play the champions in 2 FA Cup Finals though. Is this a serious debate or are you just putting your paranoid hat on again ? Do you know what paranoid means? Would you prefer us to have been in Europe all those times by being 2nd, 3rd, 4th or even lower or to have won a cup? aaahhh.......if it were only so simple I would have preferred to have played Tranmere in a Cup Final instead of ManU. I'm sure you won't understand this though. I expect you will blame Shepherd for that too No I wouldn't. Why wouldn't I understand that you would have preferred to play Tranmere rather than Manchester United? Is that meant to be derogatory? Again, another question you have failed to answer. Would you have given up all the European nights if you could have seen us win one cup? I'm not sure, but what has that got to do with blaming Shepherd for the players not beating manu or Arsenal in a Cup Final ? Which you are clearly angling at ....... Well you keep going on about Europe and how often we have been there, I am simply asking you if you would have given up the European nights for one cup. That's not too difficult to understand is it? I'm just pointing out what the old board achieved to people who label them "shit". They backed their managers and in turn we had some quality teams more than capable of winning a trophy. What more can they do ? After that its out of their hands come the day of the big games. Thats not too difficult to understand is it ? Care to show me where I said that? Still no answer to the questions I have asked then? well, stop arguing with me when I correctly point out how well they did then. What are you going on about? You actually quoted something I didn't say because I disagreed with you, and yet you were having a moan because I said that you claimed the football was brilliant under the last years of Fred Shepherd. Talk about hypocritical! The football was good, and I have never said it wasn't. But all the nights in Europe still do not cancel out the fact that we spent a shedload and won sod all. And just because Fred Shepherd and Sir John Hall dropped us into the financial shite does not excuse Ashley's horrendous management of the football club. However on the flipside, just because Ashley has been terrible does not excuse Fred Shepherd and Sir John Hall's spending in the final years which lead us down the road we are on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 It's hard to pick between swapping all of our European nights for winning a cup. Being in Europe for a number of years implies that you're regularly watching a very good team playing exciting football and winning a lot of games. Winning a cup could be a complete fluke - look at Pompey - and as fantastic as it would be might be the one glimmer of light in amongst the garbage. I don't think it's as simple as saying 'I'd swap all the nights in Europe for one cup' - hence me (somewhat facetiously, granted) asking if you'd swap the last 18 years with Sheff Weds etc. It's more heavily layered, and involves the bigger picture of what's happening at the club. Goes without saying it'd be beyond amazing if we won something btw. Exactly. I'd rather play in the CL because the measure of any team is how it performs in the league. If we're good in the league, we'd qualify for the CL. There's no other way. You can't fluke your way into the CL, but you can definitely fluke your way into winning a cup like the FA Cup or the League Cup. Playing in the CL also enhances your chances of winning other, more meaningful trophies and enables you to compete in the long-run for every trophy. Winning an FA Cup will be magical for that one day, and maybe the magic will last until we're inevitably knocked out by a better team in the next season, but consistently playing in the CL will mean so much more for the club's long-term chances. The goal, for any club, has to be consistently challenging for trophies and performing well in the league. That's why I'd easily and without doubt forgo winning the FA Cup if it meant that we'd get to play in the CL. There is not a snowflakes chance in hell I would forgo winning the FA cup just so we could finish 4th. We have finished in Champions League positions before and look where we are now. I would love to see our team win a trophy at the top level. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Just a quick question for NE5, Without referring to other clubs, was Roeder and Allerdyce ambitious management appointments and why? now then toonlass........are you aware that Allardyce was touted as an England manager when we appointed him ? Is that ambitious enough for you ? Or are you a hindsight person, or even a Keegan bandwagon jumper that thinks mediocrity is halfway in the premiership ? Which asks the question. If the previous board were so shite, how come the people before and after them got nowhere near matching them, despite the Halls and Shepherd having so little ambition in comparison ? Oy Leazes, was it ambitious to appoint Roeder and Allardyce? oy toonlass, everybody appoints winning and ambitous managers every time, especially managers in the frame to manage England, didn't you know, including all those 87 teams who didn't qualify for europe as often as we did Ok Leazes what do you notice about this list then Everton Portsmouth Sheffield Wednesday Aston Villa Leicester City Spurs Middlesbrough Blackburn eer.....none of them have qualified for europe as often as we did under the Halls and Shepherd ? Is that your final answer? I don't need to phone a friend How about they all managed to win a cup that we would have loved to have won, since 1991? Doesn't matter how many times we qualified for Europe, I would trade in every single european night we had to have what they got. NE5, you are the weakest link. Goodbye! so who do you blame for not even winning the league cup, as we have clearly had a better team than most of that lot for the vast majority of the period between 1992-2007 ? who do you blame? Well, as the board had done their job and provided their managers with good enough players, its fairly obvious, provided you don't have your head up your arse. Ahhh right. So they were not good enough to win us a trophy but they were "good enough". Got ya. thought you knew your football It means the players didn't perform on the day, on a number of occasions. The fact that inferior teams have won such cups should also tell you....... Unlucky to play the champions in 2 FA Cup Finals though. Is this a serious debate or are you just putting your paranoid hat on again ? Do you know what paranoid means? Would you prefer us to have been in Europe all those times by being 2nd, 3rd, 4th or even lower or to have won a cup? aaahhh.......if it were only so simple I would have preferred to have played Tranmere in a Cup Final instead of ManU. I'm sure you won't understand this though. I expect you will blame Shepherd for that too No I wouldn't. Why wouldn't I understand that you would have preferred to play Tranmere rather than Manchester United? Is that meant to be derogatory? Again, another question you have failed to answer. Would you have given up all the European nights if you could have seen us win one cup? I'm not sure, but what has that got to do with blaming Shepherd for the players not beating manu or Arsenal in a Cup Final ? Which you are clearly angling at ....... Well you keep going on about Europe and how often we have been there, I am simply asking you if you would have given up the European nights for one cup. That's not too difficult to understand is it? I'm just pointing out what the old board achieved to people who label them "shit". They backed their managers and in turn we had some quality teams more than capable of winning a trophy. What more can they do ? After that its out of their hands come the day of the big games. Thats not too difficult to understand is it ? Care to show me where I said that? Still no answer to the questions I have asked then? well, stop arguing with me when I correctly point out how well they did then. What are you going on about? You actually quoted something I didn't say because I disagreed with you, and yet you were having a moan because I said that you claimed the football was brilliant under the last years of Fred Shepherd. Talk about hypocritical! The football was good, and I have never said it wasn't. But all the nights in Europe still do not cancel out the fact that we spent a shedload and won sod all. And just because Fred Shepherd and Sir John Hall dropped us into the financial shite does not excuse Ashley's horrendous management of the football club. However on the flipside, just because Ashley has been terrible does not excuse Fred Shepherd and Sir John Hall's spending in the final years which lead us down the road we are on. your last line is like saying Alan Shearer was shit and in your opinion should have been replaced for missing a penalty against Partizan He was still by far the best for the job, and the same goes for the Halls and Shepherd. I don't think you and others seriously understand this at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Just a quick question for NE5, Without referring to other clubs, was Roeder and Allerdyce ambitious management appointments and why? now then toonlass........are you aware that Allardyce was touted as an England manager when we appointed him ? Is that ambitious enough for you ? Or are you a hindsight person, or even a Keegan bandwagon jumper that thinks mediocrity is halfway in the premiership ? Which asks the question. If the previous board were so shite, how come the people before and after them got nowhere near matching them, despite the Halls and Shepherd having so little ambition in comparison ? Oy Leazes, was it ambitious to appoint Roeder and Allardyce? oy toonlass, everybody appoints winning and ambitous managers every time, especially managers in the frame to manage England, didn't you know, including all those 87 teams who didn't qualify for europe as often as we did Ok Leazes what do you notice about this list then Everton Portsmouth Sheffield Wednesday Aston Villa Leicester City Spurs Middlesbrough Blackburn eer.....none of them have qualified for europe as often as we did under the Halls and Shepherd ? Is that your final answer? I don't need to phone a friend How about they all managed to win a cup that we would have loved to have won, since 1991? Doesn't matter how many times we qualified for Europe, I would trade in every single european night we had to have what they got. NE5, you are the weakest link. Goodbye! so who do you blame for not even winning the league cup, as we have clearly had a better team than most of that lot for the vast majority of the period between 1992-2007 ? who do you blame? Well, as the board had done their job and provided their managers with good enough players, its fairly obvious, provided you don't have your head up your arse. Ahhh right. So they were not good enough to win us a trophy but they were "good enough". Got ya. thought you knew your football It means the players didn't perform on the day, on a number of occasions. The fact that inferior teams have won such cups should also tell you....... Unlucky to play the champions in 2 FA Cup Finals though. Is this a serious debate or are you just putting your paranoid hat on again ? Do you know what paranoid means? Would you prefer us to have been in Europe all those times by being 2nd, 3rd, 4th or even lower or to have won a cup? aaahhh.......if it were only so simple I would have preferred to have played Tranmere in a Cup Final instead of ManU. I'm sure you won't understand this though. I expect you will blame Shepherd for that too No I wouldn't. Why wouldn't I understand that you would have preferred to play Tranmere rather than Manchester United? Is that meant to be derogatory? Again, another question you have failed to answer. Would you have given up all the European nights if you could have seen us win one cup? I'm not sure, but what has that got to do with blaming Shepherd for the players not beating manu or Arsenal in a Cup Final ? Which you are clearly angling at ....... Well you keep going on about Europe and how often we have been there, I am simply asking you if you would have given up the European nights for one cup. That's not too difficult to understand is it? I'm just pointing out what the old board achieved to people who label them "shit". They backed their managers and in turn we had some quality teams more than capable of winning a trophy. What more can they do ? After that its out of their hands come the day of the big games. Thats not too difficult to understand is it ? Care to show me where I said that? Still no answer to the questions I have asked then? well, stop arguing with me when I correctly point out how well they did then. What are you going on about? You actually quoted something I didn't say because I disagreed with you, and yet you were having a moan because I said that you claimed the football was brilliant under the last years of Fred Shepherd. Talk about hypocritical! The football was good, and I have never said it wasn't. But all the nights in Europe still do not cancel out the fact that we spent a shedload and won sod all. And just because Fred Shepherd and Sir John Hall dropped us into the financial shite does not excuse Ashley's horrendous management of the football club. However on the flipside, just because Ashley has been terrible does not excuse Fred Shepherd and Sir John Hall's spending in the final years which lead us down the road we are on. your last line is like saying Alan Shearer was shit and in your opinion should have been replaced for missing a penalty against Partizan He was still by far the best for the job, and the same goes for the Halls and Shepherd. I don't think you and others seriously understand this at all. Again you are putting words that people haven't said in their mouths to make you feel like you are correct. Have you worked out your answers for the two questions I asked and remain unanswered yet? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Just a quick question for NE5, Without referring to other clubs, was Roeder and Allerdyce ambitious management appointments and why? now then toonlass........are you aware that Allardyce was touted as an England manager when we appointed him ? Is that ambitious enough for you ? Or are you a hindsight person, or even a Keegan bandwagon jumper that thinks mediocrity is halfway in the premiership ? Which asks the question. If the previous board were so shite, how come the people before and after them got nowhere near matching them, despite the Halls and Shepherd having so little ambition in comparison ? Oy Leazes, was it ambitious to appoint Roeder and Allardyce? oy toonlass, everybody appoints winning and ambitous managers every time, especially managers in the frame to manage England, didn't you know, including all those 87 teams who didn't qualify for europe as often as we did Ok Leazes what do you notice about this list then Everton Portsmouth Sheffield Wednesday Aston Villa Leicester City Spurs Middlesbrough Blackburn eer.....none of them have qualified for europe as often as we did under the Halls and Shepherd ? Is that your final answer? I don't need to phone a friend How about they all managed to win a cup that we would have loved to have won, since 1991? Doesn't matter how many times we qualified for Europe, I would trade in every single european night we had to have what they got. NE5, you are the weakest link. Goodbye! so who do you blame for not even winning the league cup, as we have clearly had a better team than most of that lot for the vast majority of the period between 1992-2007 ? who do you blame? Well, as the board had done their job and provided their managers with good enough players, its fairly obvious, provided you don't have your head up your arse. Ahhh right. So they were not good enough to win us a trophy but they were "good enough". Got ya. thought you knew your football It means the players didn't perform on the day, on a number of occasions. The fact that inferior teams have won such cups should also tell you....... Unlucky to play the champions in 2 FA Cup Finals though. Is this a serious debate or are you just putting your paranoid hat on again ? Do you know what paranoid means? Would you prefer us to have been in Europe all those times by being 2nd, 3rd, 4th or even lower or to have won a cup? aaahhh.......if it were only so simple I would have preferred to have played Tranmere in a Cup Final instead of ManU. I'm sure you won't understand this though. I expect you will blame Shepherd for that too No I wouldn't. Why wouldn't I understand that you would have preferred to play Tranmere rather than Manchester United? Is that meant to be derogatory? Again, another question you have failed to answer. Would you have given up all the European nights if you could have seen us win one cup? I'm not sure, but what has that got to do with blaming Shepherd for the players not beating manu or Arsenal in a Cup Final ? Which you are clearly angling at ....... Well you keep going on about Europe and how often we have been there, I am simply asking you if you would have given up the European nights for one cup. That's not too difficult to understand is it? I'm just pointing out what the old board achieved to people who label them "shit". They backed their managers and in turn we had some quality teams more than capable of winning a trophy. What more can they do ? After that its out of their hands come the day of the big games. Thats not too difficult to understand is it ? Care to show me where I said that? Still no answer to the questions I have asked then? well, stop arguing with me when I correctly point out how well they did then. What are you going on about? You actually quoted something I didn't say because I disagreed with you, and yet you were having a moan because I said that you claimed the football was brilliant under the last years of Fred Shepherd. Talk about hypocritical! The football was good, and I have never said it wasn't. But all the nights in Europe still do not cancel out the fact that we spent a shedload and won sod all. And just because Fred Shepherd and Sir John Hall dropped us into the financial shite does not excuse Ashley's horrendous management of the football club. However on the flipside, just because Ashley has been terrible does not excuse Fred Shepherd and Sir John Hall's spending in the final years which lead us down the road we are on. your last line is like saying Alan Shearer was shit and in your opinion should have been replaced for missing a penalty against Partizan He was still by far the best for the job, and the same goes for the Halls and Shepherd. I don't think you and others seriously understand this at all. 1. Again you are putting words that people haven't said in their mouths to make you feel like you are correct. 2. Have you worked out your answers for the two questions I asked and remain unanswered yet? 1. No I'm not 2. Yes I have Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Just a quick question for NE5, Without referring to other clubs, was Roeder and Allerdyce ambitious management appointments and why? now then toonlass........are you aware that Allardyce was touted as an England manager when we appointed him ? Is that ambitious enough for you ? Or are you a hindsight person, or even a Keegan bandwagon jumper that thinks mediocrity is halfway in the premiership ? Which asks the question. If the previous board were so shite, how come the people before and after them got nowhere near matching them, despite the Halls and Shepherd having so little ambition in comparison ? Oy Leazes, was it ambitious to appoint Roeder and Allardyce? oy toonlass, everybody appoints winning and ambitous managers every time, especially managers in the frame to manage England, didn't you know, including all those 87 teams who didn't qualify for europe as often as we did Ok Leazes what do you notice about this list then Everton Portsmouth Sheffield Wednesday Aston Villa Leicester City Spurs Middlesbrough Blackburn eer.....none of them have qualified for europe as often as we did under the Halls and Shepherd ? Is that your final answer? I don't need to phone a friend How about they all managed to win a cup that we would have loved to have won, since 1991? Doesn't matter how many times we qualified for Europe, I would trade in every single european night we had to have what they got. NE5, you are the weakest link. Goodbye! so who do you blame for not even winning the league cup, as we have clearly had a better team than most of that lot for the vast majority of the period between 1992-2007 ? who do you blame? Well, as the board had done their job and provided their managers with good enough players, its fairly obvious, provided you don't have your head up your arse. Ahhh right. So they were not good enough to win us a trophy but they were "good enough". Got ya. thought you knew your football It means the players didn't perform on the day, on a number of occasions. The fact that inferior teams have won such cups should also tell you....... Unlucky to play the champions in 2 FA Cup Finals though. Is this a serious debate or are you just putting your paranoid hat on again ? Do you know what paranoid means? Would you prefer us to have been in Europe all those times by being 2nd, 3rd, 4th or even lower or to have won a cup? aaahhh.......if it were only so simple I would have preferred to have played Tranmere in a Cup Final instead of ManU. I'm sure you won't understand this though. I expect you will blame Shepherd for that too No I wouldn't. Why wouldn't I understand that you would have preferred to play Tranmere rather than Manchester United? Is that meant to be derogatory? Again, another question you have failed to answer. Would you have given up all the European nights if you could have seen us win one cup? I'm not sure, but what has that got to do with blaming Shepherd for the players not beating manu or Arsenal in a Cup Final ? Which you are clearly angling at ....... Well you keep going on about Europe and how often we have been there, I am simply asking you if you would have given up the European nights for one cup. That's not too difficult to understand is it? I'm just pointing out what the old board achieved to people who label them "shit". They backed their managers and in turn we had some quality teams more than capable of winning a trophy. What more can they do ? After that its out of their hands come the day of the big games. Thats not too difficult to understand is it ? Care to show me where I said that? Still no answer to the questions I have asked then? well, stop arguing with me when I correctly point out how well they did then. What are you going on about? You actually quoted something I didn't say because I disagreed with you, and yet you were having a moan because I said that you claimed the football was brilliant under the last years of Fred Shepherd. Talk about hypocritical! The football was good, and I have never said it wasn't. But all the nights in Europe still do not cancel out the fact that we spent a shedload and won sod all. And just because Fred Shepherd and Sir John Hall dropped us into the financial shite does not excuse Ashley's horrendous management of the football club. However on the flipside, just because Ashley has been terrible does not excuse Fred Shepherd and Sir John Hall's spending in the final years which lead us down the road we are on. your last line is like saying Alan Shearer was shit and in your opinion should have been replaced for missing a penalty against Partizan He was still by far the best for the job, and the same goes for the Halls and Shepherd. I don't think you and others seriously understand this at all. 1. Again you are putting words that people haven't said in their mouths to make you feel like you are correct. 2. Have you worked out your answers for the two questions I asked and remain unanswered yet? 1. No I'm not 2. Yes I have 1. In that case what was the bit that I highlighted about then? Looks like putting words in people's mouths to me. 2. No you haven't. Were Newcastle United ambitious in appointing Roeder and Alladyce? Would you give up the European nights to win a cup? If you could answer the two questions in the same format as you used directly above I would appreciate it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Just a quick question for NE5, Without referring to other clubs, was Roeder and Allerdyce ambitious management appointments and why? now then toonlass........are you aware that Allardyce was touted as an England manager when we appointed him ? Is that ambitious enough for you ? Or are you a hindsight person, or even a Keegan bandwagon jumper that thinks mediocrity is halfway in the premiership ? Which asks the question. If the previous board were so shite, how come the people before and after them got nowhere near matching them, despite the Halls and Shepherd having so little ambition in comparison ? Oy Leazes, was it ambitious to appoint Roeder and Allardyce? oy toonlass, everybody appoints winning and ambitous managers every time, especially managers in the frame to manage England, didn't you know, including all those 87 teams who didn't qualify for europe as often as we did Ok Leazes what do you notice about this list then Everton Portsmouth Sheffield Wednesday Aston Villa Leicester City Spurs Middlesbrough Blackburn eer.....none of them have qualified for europe as often as we did under the Halls and Shepherd ? Is that your final answer? I don't need to phone a friend How about they all managed to win a cup that we would have loved to have won, since 1991? Doesn't matter how many times we qualified for Europe, I would trade in every single european night we had to have what they got. NE5, you are the weakest link. Goodbye! so who do you blame for not even winning the league cup, as we have clearly had a better team than most of that lot for the vast majority of the period between 1992-2007 ? who do you blame? Well, as the board had done their job and provided their managers with good enough players, its fairly obvious, provided you don't have your head up your arse. Ahhh right. So they were not good enough to win us a trophy but they were "good enough". Got ya. thought you knew your football It means the players didn't perform on the day, on a number of occasions. The fact that inferior teams have won such cups should also tell you....... Unlucky to play the champions in 2 FA Cup Finals though. Is this a serious debate or are you just putting your paranoid hat on again ? Do you know what paranoid means? Would you prefer us to have been in Europe all those times by being 2nd, 3rd, 4th or even lower or to have won a cup? aaahhh.......if it were only so simple I would have preferred to have played Tranmere in a Cup Final instead of ManU. I'm sure you won't understand this though. I expect you will blame Shepherd for that too No I wouldn't. Why wouldn't I understand that you would have preferred to play Tranmere rather than Manchester United? Is that meant to be derogatory? Again, another question you have failed to answer. Would you have given up all the European nights if you could have seen us win one cup? I'm not sure, but what has that got to do with blaming Shepherd for the players not beating manu or Arsenal in a Cup Final ? Which you are clearly angling at ....... Well you keep going on about Europe and how often we have been there, I am simply asking you if you would have given up the European nights for one cup. That's not too difficult to understand is it? I'm just pointing out what the old board achieved to people who label them "shit". They backed their managers and in turn we had some quality teams more than capable of winning a trophy. What more can they do ? After that its out of their hands come the day of the big games. Thats not too difficult to understand is it ? Care to show me where I said that? Still no answer to the questions I have asked then? well, stop arguing with me when I correctly point out how well they did then. What are you going on about? You actually quoted something I didn't say because I disagreed with you, and yet you were having a moan because I said that you claimed the football was brilliant under the last years of Fred Shepherd. Talk about hypocritical! The football was good, and I have never said it wasn't. But all the nights in Europe still do not cancel out the fact that we spent a shedload and won sod all. And just because Fred Shepherd and Sir John Hall dropped us into the financial shite does not excuse Ashley's horrendous management of the football club. However on the flipside, just because Ashley has been terrible does not excuse Fred Shepherd and Sir John Hall's spending in the final years which lead us down the road we are on. your last line is like saying Alan Shearer was shit and in your opinion should have been replaced for missing a penalty against Partizan He was still by far the best for the job, and the same goes for the Halls and Shepherd. I don't think you and others seriously understand this at all. 1. Again you are putting words that people haven't said in their mouths to make you feel like you are correct. 2. Have you worked out your answers for the two questions I asked and remain unanswered yet? 1. No I'm not 2. Yes I have 1. In that case what was the bit that I highlighted about then? Looks like putting words in people's mouths to me. 2. No you haven't. Were Newcastle United ambitious in appointing Roeder and Alladyce? Would you give up the European nights to win a cup? If you could answer the two questions in the same format as you used directly above I would appreciate it. haha, yes appointing a potential England manager is ambitious, of course it is ? Did you prefer the days we appointed Jim Smith as the 8th choice and Geordie managers such as Howard Kendall turned us down ? I've told you I don't know if I would swap regular european football and an ambitious board running a club regularly winning as against one spending year after year struggling with a few relegations thrown in but a one off fluke cup win. What has this got to do with ambition, this isn't ambition, its just luck Do you accept that the Halls and Shepherd achieved the best league positions by far for this club in the last 50 years. Yes or no ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Just a quick question for NE5, Without referring to other clubs, was Roeder and Allerdyce ambitious management appointments and why? now then toonlass........are you aware that Allardyce was touted as an England manager when we appointed him ? Is that ambitious enough for you ? Or are you a hindsight person, or even a Keegan bandwagon jumper that thinks mediocrity is halfway in the premiership ? Which asks the question. If the previous board were so shite, how come the people before and after them got nowhere near matching them, despite the Halls and Shepherd having so little ambition in comparison ? Oy Leazes, was it ambitious to appoint Roeder and Allardyce? oy toonlass, everybody appoints winning and ambitous managers every time, especially managers in the frame to manage England, didn't you know, including all those 87 teams who didn't qualify for europe as often as we did Ok Leazes what do you notice about this list then Everton Portsmouth Sheffield Wednesday Aston Villa Leicester City Spurs Middlesbrough Blackburn eer.....none of them have qualified for europe as often as we did under the Halls and Shepherd ? Is that your final answer? I don't need to phone a friend How about they all managed to win a cup that we would have loved to have won, since 1991? Doesn't matter how many times we qualified for Europe, I would trade in every single european night we had to have what they got. NE5, you are the weakest link. Goodbye! so who do you blame for not even winning the league cup, as we have clearly had a better team than most of that lot for the vast majority of the period between 1992-2007 ? who do you blame? Well, as the board had done their job and provided their managers with good enough players, its fairly obvious, provided you don't have your head up your arse. Ahhh right. So they were not good enough to win us a trophy but they were "good enough". Got ya. thought you knew your football It means the players didn't perform on the day, on a number of occasions. The fact that inferior teams have won such cups should also tell you....... Unlucky to play the champions in 2 FA Cup Finals though. Is this a serious debate or are you just putting your paranoid hat on again ? Do you know what paranoid means? Would you prefer us to have been in Europe all those times by being 2nd, 3rd, 4th or even lower or to have won a cup? aaahhh.......if it were only so simple I would have preferred to have played Tranmere in a Cup Final instead of ManU. I'm sure you won't understand this though. I expect you will blame Shepherd for that too No I wouldn't. Why wouldn't I understand that you would have preferred to play Tranmere rather than Manchester United? Is that meant to be derogatory? Again, another question you have failed to answer. Would you have given up all the European nights if you could have seen us win one cup? I'm not sure, but what has that got to do with blaming Shepherd for the players not beating manu or Arsenal in a Cup Final ? Which you are clearly angling at ....... Well you keep going on about Europe and how often we have been there, I am simply asking you if you would have given up the European nights for one cup. That's not too difficult to understand is it? I'm just pointing out what the old board achieved to people who label them "shit". They backed their managers and in turn we had some quality teams more than capable of winning a trophy. What more can they do ? After that its out of their hands come the day of the big games. Thats not too difficult to understand is it ? Care to show me where I said that? Still no answer to the questions I have asked then? well, stop arguing with me when I correctly point out how well they did then. What are you going on about? You actually quoted something I didn't say because I disagreed with you, and yet you were having a moan because I said that you claimed the football was brilliant under the last years of Fred Shepherd. Talk about hypocritical! The football was good, and I have never said it wasn't. But all the nights in Europe still do not cancel out the fact that we spent a shedload and won sod all. And just because Fred Shepherd and Sir John Hall dropped us into the financial shite does not excuse Ashley's horrendous management of the football club. However on the flipside, just because Ashley has been terrible does not excuse Fred Shepherd and Sir John Hall's spending in the final years which lead us down the road we are on. your last line is like saying Alan Shearer was shit and in your opinion should have been replaced for missing a penalty against Partizan He was still by far the best for the job, and the same goes for the Halls and Shepherd. I don't think you and others seriously understand this at all. 1. Again you are putting words that people haven't said in their mouths to make you feel like you are correct. 2. Have you worked out your answers for the two questions I asked and remain unanswered yet? 1. No I'm not 2. Yes I have 1. In that case what was the bit that I highlighted about then? Looks like putting words in people's mouths to me. 2. No you haven't. Were Newcastle United ambitious in appointing Roeder and Alladyce? Would you give up the European nights to win a cup? If you could answer the two questions in the same format as you used directly above I would appreciate it. haha, yes appointing a potential England manager is ambitious, of course it is ? Did you prefer the days we appointed Jim Smith as the 8th choice and Geordie managers such as Howard Kendall turned us down ? I've told you I don't know if I would swap regular european football and an ambitious board running a club regularly winning as against one spending year after year struggling with a few relegations thrown in but a one off fluke cup win. What has this got to do with ambition, this isn't ambition, its just luck Do you accept that the Halls and Shepherd achieved the best league positions by far for this club in the last 50 years. Yes or no ? Of course I do and have said that ages ago. Maybe you should start reading more than the first sentence people write and you would have known that. However we had started to slide by the time Sir John Hall sold up. I would have thought that you would be able to remember winning the fairs cup. According to people who were alive and can remember what it was like it was a magnificent achievement. I asked my dad which felt better, just now on the phone, and he reckons winning the fairs cup was certainly better than ever finishing in a champions league place. 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