Are the Hall's innocent

[stozo]

I've been thinking, Are the Hall's as innocent in this crisis as they seem? I mean they are the majority shareholders yet they play no part in running the club and leave it all to Shepherd. Surely they must take some of the blame?

[Guest]

Good point actually. For being the majority shareholder they do f*ck all to take the weight off Shepherd's shoulders when he's under pressure.

[Isegrim]

What Dougie "under Robson we would have got relegated" Hall innocent? 

[Skirge]

Yeah I agree they are just as much to blame for the mess as Fred, and seeign as how SJH keeps on saying he wil lsell all of their shres he nas not sold them yet and seem just ass reluctent to sell them to Fred.

[ujpest doza]

One of the reasons FFS gives for wanting to take the club into private ownership himself is because he feels he is bearing the brunt of criticism and the Halls get off scot free.

 

Says he wouldn't mind the criticism if it was all his own doing in a company privately owned entirely by himself.

 

 

EDIT from the article in the Daily Mail quoted on another thread :

 

Shepherd, however, has often had to leave the big decisions to the Halls and, while they have been spending more time overseas, he has been left in a firefighting role.

 

Now he has decided that if he is going to take the flak for poor results and bad transfer buys, he should be in control.

 

[Guest TheKingOfNewcastle]

Shepherd and the Halls have served their purpose, they've given the club a bigger profile and built the club up financially. Now it's time for them to sod off so that someone can take the club to the next level instead of sitting on their arse all day and raking in the dividends.

[SEMTEX]

Shepherd and the Halls have served their purpose, they've given the club a bigger profile and built the club up financially. Now it's time for them to sod off so that someone can take the club to the next level instead of sitting on their arse all day and raking in the dividends.

 

agreed. and  @ your avatar. Didnt even notice the gobshite bit until i studied it.

[Guest]

One of the reasons FFS gives for wanting to take the club into private ownership himself is because he feels he is bearing the brunt of criticism and the Halls get off scot free.

 

Says he wouldn't mind the criticism if it was all his own doing in a company privately owned entirely by himself.

 

 

EDIT from the article in the Daily Mail quoted on another thread :

 

Shepherd, however, has often had to leave the big decisions to the Halls and, while they have been spending more time overseas, he has been left in a firefighting role.

 

Now he has decided that if he is going to take the flak for poor results and bad transfer buys, he should be in control.

   

 

It's true though. If we ever do win anything Sir John Hall will come crawling straight out of the woodwork.

[LoveItIfWeBeatU]

Sir Bobby Robson doesn't seem to like them very much. After Bobby was sacked Sir John Hall came out and said that Bobby should have been sacked after we lost the Marseille UEFA Semi-final game. Bobby also seems to think that Dougie Hall was the one who got him sacked. Freddie following orders is how it comes across in Bobby's book.

[Guest Beachcomber]

It seems that the only interest the Halls have in the club now is to get the best price for their shares befor they bail out!

Therein lies their problem. They have been holding out for the price they want. But surely the closer to relegation the club gets, the less their shares are worth. Now it appears that Shepherd wants to buy, but he can wait, or can he? Belgravia also wait, so who is going to blink first?

M'mm, very interesting. :roll:

[Cronky]

I think the idea that Freddie would have done a much better job if it wasn't for the interference of the Halls needs to be knocked on the head. I can't detect any sign that the Halls get involved in transfer decisions. There have been indications that they get involved in the more major decision of the manager's appointment, but the word was that they imposed the choice of Sir Bob on Freddie, not the other way round. As for Sir Bob's dismissal, the Halls were in favour of it, but again I can't see that Freddie didn't reach the same conclusion himself by the end. I'd also heard that the Halls wanted O'Neill, but Freddie wanted Roeder.

 

If anything, I don't think they get involved enough. The club has become a bit of a one-man band.

[merlin]

I think the idea that Freddie would have done a much better job if it wasn't for the interference of the Halls needs to be knocked on the head. I can't detect any sign that the Halls get involved in transfer decisions. There have been indications that they get involved in the more major decision of the manager's appointment, but the word was that they imposed the choice of Sir Bob on Freddie, not the other way round. As for Sir Bob's dismissal, the Halls were in favour of it, but again I can't see that Freddie didn't reach the same conclusion himself by the end. I'd also heard that the Halls wanted O'Neill, but Freddie wanted Roeder.

 

If anything, I don't think they get involved enough. The club has become a bit of a one-man band.

 

That is correct - SJH wanted SBR, the Board(not just Shepherd, to be fair)were dragging feet, not convinced.

SBR SHOULD have gone earlier than he did, but with more dignity - how much of that was down to him we'll never know, but if I'd had to make the decision, I would have tried to do it with his assistance, HOWEVER - if he had said he wouldn't move upstairs etc., I would STILL have made the decision - AT THE RIGHT TIME FOR THE CLUB, and not after the start of the season.

That is what being Chairman is all about - any Chief Exec has to take hard decisions at times, that is what you get a very large salary for ; we DON'T operate in Disneyland(Bambi, etc.!?).

[Incognito]

I n my opinion,the whole downward trend can be traced back to when we went public,and the failure of the PLC to support KK.Read his book,he puts the blame on his departure on a certain Mark Corbidge and his departure before he really wanted to go.Since then save for SBR's era we have become a laughing stock in managerial appointments and general transfer dealings.Of course we have made good signings,but we have made an awful lot of bad ones too.

[Geordie Boot Boy]

I have to admit to contemplating recently that the Halls have been far more influential in the poor decisions made than they have been given credit for.  If Shepherd does try to gain full control of the club, I won't be too disheartened because it is possible that having one man in charge would lead to a more healthy decision-making structure for the club.  He would certainly have my support, for a "probationary" period anyway.

 

It does strike me as odd that he has come out with statements in the past that have contradicted subsequent actions, e.g. "I don't want to be known as the man who shot Bambi" just before reaching for his rifle (figuratively speaking).  It seems plausible to me that he genuinely didn't want to sack SBR but his hand was forced by the men behind the scenes.

 

I am starting to come around to the idea that it is overly simplistic to give Shepherd full responsibility for all of the bad decisions of recent years.

[Cronky]

I have to admit to contemplating recently that the Halls have been far more influential in the poor decisions made than they have been given credit for.  If Shepherd does try to gain full control of the club, I won't be too disheartened because it is possible that having one man in charge would lead to a more healthy decision-making structure for the club.  He would certainly have my support, for a "probationary" period anyway.

 

It does strike me as odd that he has come out with statements in the past that have contradicted subsequent actions, e.g. "I don't want to be known as the man who shot Bambi" just before reaching for his rifle (figuratively speaking).  It seems plausible to me that he genuinely didn't want to sack SBR but his hand was forced by the men behind the scenes.

 

I am starting to come around to the idea that it is overly simplistic to give Shepherd full responsibility for all of the bad decisions of recent years.

 

My reading of the situation is that both Shepherd and the Halls reached the conclusion during that season that Sir Bob should go. The Halls wanted him to go at the end of the season, but Shepherd wanted to give him one more season. The master plan in Freddie’s mind was for Shearer to take over as manager after he’d finished playing, and another season would allow that to happen.

 

On reflection, the Halls were right in the sense that if you’re going to go, go now. Freddie’s fudge and nudge approach unravelled very quickly. He initially wanted to keep the knowledge of Sir Bob’s retirement secret, but then realised that this would probably be impossible and would only lead to months of speculation and unconvincing denials or evasion. He then came out with it, and Sir Bob was then a dead man walking, losing even more of his standing in the dressing room and round the club.

 

IMO, the big mistake came earlier, at the start of the season, when Sir Bob wanted to start building for a future without Shearer, and Freddie didn’t back him. That’s the point when Sir Bob became a dead duck, not in control of the area that should have been his. That’s the point when we stopped being run in a professional manner, and we ended up with a series of decisions which were heavily influenced by the need to accommodate the career plans of one man.

 

[Geordie Boot Boy]

My reading of the situation is that both Shepherd and the Halls reached the conclusion during that season that Sir Bob should go. The Halls wanted him to go at the end of the season, but Shepherd wanted to give him one more season. The master plan in Freddie’s mind was for Shearer to take over as manager after he’d finished playing, and another season would allow that to happen.

 

On reflection, the Halls were right in the sense that if you’re going to go, go now. Freddie’s fudge and nudge approach unravelled very quickly. He initially wanted to keep the knowledge of Sir Bob’s retirement secret, but then realised that this would probably be impossible and would only lead to months of speculation and unconvincing denials or evasion. He then came out with it, and Sir Bob was then a dead man walking, losing even more of his standing in the dressing room and round the club.

 

IMO, the big mistake came earlier, at the start of the season, when Sir Bob wanted to start building for a future without Shearer, and Freddie didn’t back him. That’s the point when Sir Bob became a dead duck, not in control of the area that should have been his. That’s the point when we stopped being run in a professional manner, and we ended up with a series of decisions which were heavily influenced by the need to accommodate the career plans of one man.

 

If you were correct and the Halls wanted rid of Robson at the end of the previous season, I would imagine that he would have been gone at the end of that season.  It seems likely to me that any claims that they wanted him gone sooner after the disastrous start to the following season were made with the sort of recollection used by the average gambler who claims whilst throwing away his losing betting slip "I knew that one wouldn't win!"

 

It doesn't surprise me that, once again, you've found a stick with which to beat Shearer though.  You are, of course, entitled to your opinion but I think that, as usual, you overstate the importance of Shearer in Robson's loss of support from the chairman.  I suspect that Shepherd was pressured by the Halls to sack him, felt the need to change something to stop the dreadful run of results and had to respond to the clear fact that Robson's authority over the dressing room was questionable (largely because of his own comments to the media).

 

I've written this in a hurry so I may want to amend my post later (particularly if the facts are shown not to fit my opinions :wink: ).