Guest Toon1981 Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 If I hear that one more time i think I'll puke! Does anyone have any bright ideas about dispelling the popular misconception that the Fat man pours his life savings into the club year upon year like some sort of philanthropist with an overly active civic-pride gland??!! I'd be happy to back owt with someone else's cash, especially if i knew there was gonna be a stinking big dividend in it for me further down the line! Someone get Henry Winter on the line.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 tell me what the purpose of backing his managers is? does the share price go up the more money we spend? have a think about it... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Toon1981 Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 Well, yes of course. The problem is that within popular (i.e. bereft of grey matter) footy discourse, the perception is that Shepherd backs the club, which is not the case. The fans back the club. Shepherd backs himself, which is easy enough to do when you are both chairman (i.e. decision maker) and a major shareholder (ie the person who stands to benefit from those same decisions). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 seriously, do you think you've discovered 'The Truth' a la The X-Files, and all you have to do is convince everyone else? or are you just spouting shite you've heard elsewhere? Tell me, what is the difference between the fat man funding players, and executive X funding players? both are examples of the fans backing the club do you think there is a difference in the intended end result? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Toon1981 Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 er, ok... X-files? No, not really! I don't think I've discovered anything, I was just bringing up a topic that annoys me is all. There's plenty of info on that nufc finances site. The difference, seeing as you ask, is that in most organisations, person X would not be able to make unencumbered fiscal decisions that affect the organisation, whilst at the same time standing to gain from those same decisions. This results in Shepherd being able to pay himself and the other shareholders a dividend, even when the club has made a loss, which I'm sure you'd agree is a bit mental! And my original point was that when Shepherd/ Lawrenson/ Barnes/ whoever else make comments about the board always backing the manager, they never acknowledge the fact that the money with which they do so is not "theirs" (this is the impression that is given), but indeed comes from the fans, through tickets, merchandise etc. I hope this has clarified things for you a bit! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 I have a little more faith that the average fan realises that FF doesnt go around writing £15m cheques from his personal bank account still didnt answer the question tbh... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 Tell me, what is the difference between the fat man funding players, and executive X funding players? both are examples of the fans backing the club do you think there is a difference in the intended end result? well yes, actually I think there is, Its probable that when asked to fund the purchase of a player, executive x would expect to see something from scout/ manager etc to back up the price tag and reasoning from manager during a meeting as to the merits of said player/ who he would be replacing/ why hes needed etc. Shepherd on the other hand does not appear to do these things, purchases players off his own back (allegedly), has a son who now scouts for us "eeeeeh our Fatty Jr is geet good at his job hes spotted some young talent who Im going to pay 15million for" As for the end result: I dont doubt that as a fan Shepherd wants to see this club win things however deep down he wants to make money, that in itself is not a bad thing, fair play to him we all want to make cash. He however would appear to make financial decisions on behalf of the club which are done to benefit him (as an example see the whole warehouse and brother fiasco). If executive x was to be running it then yes, they would want to make cash but you would hope would have a long term plan and run it in a businesslike manner. Im fairly sure that executive x would also keep his/her gob firmly shut except during the shareholders meetings. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 This results in Shepherd being able to pay himself and the other shareholders a dividend, even when the club has made a loss, which I'm sure you'd agree is a bit mental! So you'd be happy for them to pay a dividend if the club had made a profit? You know by not backing the managers or something. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Toon1981 Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 nope, didn't say that. I said it's shocking to pay one when the club has made a loss. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 Well, yes of course. The problem is that within popular (i.e. bereft of grey matter) footy discourse, the perception is that Shepherd backs the club, which is not the case. The fans back the club. Shepherd backs himself, which is easy enough to do when you are both chairman (i.e. decision maker) and a major shareholder (ie the person who stands to benefit from those same decisions). only an utter idiot would think "shepherd backs his managers" to literally mean he has put in 200m quid or whatever of his own money Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 Tell me, what is the difference between the fat man funding players, and executive X funding players? both are examples of the fans backing the club do you think there is a difference in the intended end result? well yes, actually I think there is, Its probable that when asked to fund the purchase of a player, executive x would expect to see something from scout/ manager etc to back up the price tag and reasoning from manager during a meeting as to the merits of said player/ who he would be replacing/ why hes needed etc. why, exactly, do you think this is not what happens at Newcastle ? You're not advocating that he interferes with his managers professional judgement I hope, I'm sure if that happened you and others would castigate him for that too ..... as you suggest below .... Shepherd on the other hand does not appear to do these things, purchases players off his own back (allegedly), has a son who now scouts for us "eeeeeh our Fatty Jr is geet good at his job hes spotted some young talent who Im going to pay 15million for" As for the end result: I dont doubt that as a fan Shepherd wants to see this club win things however deep down he wants to make money, that in itself is not a bad thing, fair play to him we all want to make cash. He however would appear to make financial decisions on behalf of the club which are done to benefit him (as an example see the whole warehouse and brother fiasco). If executive x was to be running it then yes, they would want to make cash but you would hope would have a long term plan and run it in a businesslike manner. Im fairly sure that executive x would also keep his/her gob firmly shut except during the shareholders meetings. on the other hand, he might not. Although it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on results, so long as his manager brings in the right players. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 If I hear that one more time i think I'll puke! Does anyone have any bright ideas about dispelling the popular misconception that the Fat man pours his life savings into the club year upon year like some sort of philanthropist with an overly active civic-pride gland??!! I'd be happy to back owt with someone else's cash, especially if i knew there was gonna be a stinking big dividend in it for me further down the line! Someone get Henry Winter on the line.... Tripe Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 If I hear that one more time i think I'll puke! Does anyone have any bright ideas about dispelling the popular misconception that the Fat man pours his life savings into the club year upon year like some sort of philanthropist with an overly active civic-pride gland??!! I'd be happy to back owt with someone else's cash, especially if i knew there was gonna be a stinking big dividend in it for me further down the line! Someone get Henry Winter on the line.... Tripe indeed, and what does he think Henry Winter knows about Newcastle ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 Tell me, what is the difference between the fat man funding players, and executive X funding players? both are examples of the fans backing the club do you think there is a difference in the intended end result? well yes, actually I think there is, Its probable that when asked to fund the purchase of a player, executive x would expect to see something from scout/ manager etc to back up the price tag and reasoning from manager during a meeting as to the merits of said player/ who he would be replacing/ why hes needed etc. Shepherd on the other hand does not appear to do these things, purchases players off his own back (allegedly), has a son who now scouts for us "eeeeeh our Fatty Jr is geet good at his job hes spotted some young talent who Im going to pay 15million for" As for the end result: I dont doubt that as a fan Shepherd wants to see this club win things however deep down he wants to make money, that in itself is not a bad thing, fair play to him we all want to make cash. He however would appear to make financial decisions on behalf of the club which are done to benefit him (as an example see the whole warehouse and brother fiasco). If executive x was to be running it then yes, they would want to make cash but you would hope would have a long term plan and run it in a businesslike manner. Im fairly sure that executive x would also keep his/her gob firmly shut except during the shareholders meetings. Unconfirmed speculation, mate. Fact is, if it got out that the manager wanted to sign 'x' player but was over-ruled by Fred with the reason given that Fred thinks the player isn't worth signing all hell would break out. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't yet again. Surprised at you, like. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 Tell me, what is the difference between the fat man funding players, and executive X funding players? both are examples of the fans backing the club do you think there is a difference in the intended end result? well yes, actually I think there is, Its probable that when asked to fund the purchase of a player, executive x would expect to see something from scout/ manager etc to back up the price tag and reasoning from manager during a meeting as to the merits of said player/ who he would be replacing/ why hes needed etc. Shepherd on the other hand does not appear to do these things, purchases players off his own back (allegedly), has a son who now scouts for us "eeeeeh our Fatty Jr is geet good at his job hes spotted some young talent who Im going to pay 15million for" As for the end result: I dont doubt that as a fan Shepherd wants to see this club win things however deep down he wants to make money, that in itself is not a bad thing, fair play to him we all want to make cash. He however would appear to make financial decisions on behalf of the club which are done to benefit him (as an example see the whole warehouse and brother fiasco). If executive x was to be running it then yes, they would want to make cash but you would hope would have a long term plan and run it in a businesslike manner. Im fairly sure that executive x would also keep his/her gob firmly shut except during the shareholders meetings. Unconfirmed speculation, mate. Fact is, if it got out that the manager wanted to sign 'x' player but was over-ruled by Fred with the reason given that Fred thinks the player isn't worth signing all hell would break out. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't yet again. Surprised at you, like. What is your opinion about Sir Bobby saying that Shepherd tried to sell players behind his back? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 Tell me, what is the difference between the fat man funding players, and executive X funding players? both are examples of the fans backing the club do you think there is a difference in the intended end result? well yes, actually I think there is, Its probable that when asked to fund the purchase of a player, executive x would expect to see something from scout/ manager etc to back up the price tag and reasoning from manager during a meeting as to the merits of said player/ who he would be replacing/ why hes needed etc. Shepherd on the other hand does not appear to do these things, purchases players off his own back (allegedly), has a son who now scouts for us "eeeeeh our Fatty Jr is geet good at his job hes spotted some young talent who Im going to pay 15million for" As for the end result: I dont doubt that as a fan Shepherd wants to see this club win things however deep down he wants to make money, that in itself is not a bad thing, fair play to him we all want to make cash. He however would appear to make financial decisions on behalf of the club which are done to benefit him (as an example see the whole warehouse and brother fiasco). If executive x was to be running it then yes, they would want to make cash but you would hope would have a long term plan and run it in a businesslike manner. Im fairly sure that executive x would also keep his/her gob firmly shut except during the shareholders meetings. Unconfirmed speculation, mate. Fact is, if it got out that the manager wanted to sign 'x' player but was over-ruled by Fred with the reason given that Fred thinks the player isn't worth signing all hell would break out. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't yet again. Surprised at you, like. What is your opinion about Sir Bobby saying that Shepherd tried to sell players behind his back? Are you asking the people who blame Shepherd for allowing bad players to come to the club that question ? I've quoted HTL so it's a safe bet to presume that it was his opinion I was after. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 Tell me, what is the difference between the fat man funding players, and executive X funding players? both are examples of the fans backing the club do you think there is a difference in the intended end result? well yes, actually I think there is, Its probable that when asked to fund the purchase of a player, executive x would expect to see something from scout/ manager etc to back up the price tag and reasoning from manager during a meeting as to the merits of said player/ who he would be replacing/ why hes needed etc. Shepherd on the other hand does not appear to do these things, purchases players off his own back (allegedly), has a son who now scouts for us "eeeeeh our Fatty Jr is geet good at his job hes spotted some young talent who Im going to pay 15million for" As for the end result: I dont doubt that as a fan Shepherd wants to see this club win things however deep down he wants to make money, that in itself is not a bad thing, fair play to him we all want to make cash. He however would appear to make financial decisions on behalf of the club which are done to benefit him (as an example see the whole warehouse and brother fiasco). If executive x was to be running it then yes, they would want to make cash but you would hope would have a long term plan and run it in a businesslike manner. Im fairly sure that executive x would also keep his/her gob firmly shut except during the shareholders meetings. Unconfirmed speculation, mate. Fact is, if it got out that the manager wanted to sign 'x' player but was over-ruled by Fred with the reason given that Fred thinks the player isn't worth signing all hell would break out. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't yet again. Surprised at you, like. What is your opinion about Sir Bobby saying that Shepherd tried to sell players behind his back? Are you asking the people who blame Shepherd for allowing bad players to come to the club that question ? I've quoted HTL so it's a safe bet to presume that it was his opinion I was after. ah shame, its likely he was also waiting for peasepuds response and not yours. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 Tell me, what is the difference between the fat man funding players, and executive X funding players? both are examples of the fans backing the club do you think there is a difference in the intended end result? well yes, actually I think there is, Its probable that when asked to fund the purchase of a player, executive x would expect to see something from scout/ manager etc to back up the price tag and reasoning from manager during a meeting as to the merits of said player/ who he would be replacing/ why hes needed etc. Shepherd on the other hand does not appear to do these things, purchases players off his own back (allegedly), has a son who now scouts for us "eeeeeh our Fatty Jr is geet good at his job hes spotted some young talent who Im going to pay 15million for" As for the end result: I dont doubt that as a fan Shepherd wants to see this club win things however deep down he wants to make money, that in itself is not a bad thing, fair play to him we all want to make cash. He however would appear to make financial decisions on behalf of the club which are done to benefit him (as an example see the whole warehouse and brother fiasco). If executive x was to be running it then yes, they would want to make cash but you would hope would have a long term plan and run it in a businesslike manner. Im fairly sure that executive x would also keep his/her gob firmly shut except during the shareholders meetings. Unconfirmed speculation, mate. Fact is, if it got out that the manager wanted to sign 'x' player but was over-ruled by Fred with the reason given that Fred thinks the player isn't worth signing all hell would break out. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't yet again. Surprised at you, like. What is your opinion about Sir Bobby saying that Shepherd tried to sell players behind his back? Are you asking the people who blame Shepherd for allowing bad players to come to the club that question ? I've quoted HTL so it's a safe bet to presume that it was his opinion I was after. ah shame, its likely he was also waiting for peasepuds response and not yours. Well I'm sure when Peasepud is back online he'll be happy to respond, as I hope HTL will be happy to respond to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 Tell me, what is the difference between the fat man funding players, and executive X funding players? both are examples of the fans backing the club do you think there is a difference in the intended end result? well yes, actually I think there is, Its probable that when asked to fund the purchase of a player, executive x would expect to see something from scout/ manager etc to back up the price tag and reasoning from manager during a meeting as to the merits of said player/ who he would be replacing/ why hes needed etc. Shepherd on the other hand does not appear to do these things, purchases players off his own back (allegedly), has a son who now scouts for us "eeeeeh our Fatty Jr is geet good at his job hes spotted some young talent who Im going to pay 15million for" As for the end result: I dont doubt that as a fan Shepherd wants to see this club win things however deep down he wants to make money, that in itself is not a bad thing, fair play to him we all want to make cash. He however would appear to make financial decisions on behalf of the club which are done to benefit him (as an example see the whole warehouse and brother fiasco). If executive x was to be running it then yes, they would want to make cash but you would hope would have a long term plan and run it in a businesslike manner. Im fairly sure that executive x would also keep his/her gob firmly shut except during the shareholders meetings. Unconfirmed speculation, mate. Fact is, if it got out that the manager wanted to sign 'x' player but was over-ruled by Fred with the reason given that Fred thinks the player isn't worth signing all hell would break out. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't yet again. Surprised at you, like. What is your opinion about Sir Bobby saying that Shepherd tried to sell players behind his back? Are you asking the people who blame Shepherd for allowing bad players to come to the club that question ? I've quoted HTL so it's a safe bet to presume that it was his opinion I was after. ah shame, its likely he was also waiting for peasepuds response and not yours. Well I'm sure when Peasepud is back online he'll be happy to respond, as I hope HTL will be happy to respond to me. he might tell you that he was only interested in peasepuds response ? I have a question for you though. Who was responsible for the choosing and persuading to come to the club, of the best manager we have had in the last 50 years at least ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 he might tell you that he was only interested in peasepuds response ? If he does then thats up to him, I can't force a reply out of him although It would make him look a hypocrite for all the times he's complained about people not answering questions he's puts forward. I'm not sure why he wouldn't give his opinion on it though, he seems a honest enough bloke. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 Tell me, what is the difference between the fat man funding players, and executive X funding players? both are examples of the fans backing the club do you think there is a difference in the intended end result? well yes, actually I think there is, Its probable that when asked to fund the purchase of a player, executive x would expect to see something from scout/ manager etc to back up the price tag and reasoning from manager during a meeting as to the merits of said player/ who he would be replacing/ why hes needed etc. Shepherd on the other hand does not appear to do these things, purchases players off his own back (allegedly), has a son who now scouts for us "eeeeeh our Fatty Jr is geet good at his job hes spotted some young talent who Im going to pay 15million for" As for the end result: I dont doubt that as a fan Shepherd wants to see this club win things however deep down he wants to make money, that in itself is not a bad thing, fair play to him we all want to make cash. He however would appear to make financial decisions on behalf of the club which are done to benefit him (as an example see the whole warehouse and brother fiasco). If executive x was to be running it then yes, they would want to make cash but you would hope would have a long term plan and run it in a businesslike manner. Im fairly sure that executive x would also keep his/her gob firmly shut except during the shareholders meetings. Unconfirmed speculation, mate. Fact is, if it got out that the manager wanted to sign 'x' player but was over-ruled by Fred with the reason given that Fred thinks the player isn't worth signing all hell would break out. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't yet again. Surprised at you, like. What is your opinion about Sir Bobby saying that Shepherd tried to sell players behind his back? My opinion is that I'm not happy about it IF it's true, I don't know that it is. Are you happy with the principle of interference in team affairs by the Board of a football club? Do you want a Board that interferes, meaning you don't slag them when they do. Or do you think a Board should allow the manager free reign, which means you don't slag the Board for giving the manager free reign? You can't have both, obviously. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 he might tell you that he was only interested in peasepuds response ? If he does then thats up to him, I can't force a reply out of him although It would make him look a hypocrite for all the times he's complained about people not answering questions he's puts forward. I'm not sure why he wouldn't give his opinion on it though, he seems a honest enough bloke. Thats a fair reply. I've asked you a question. Others can answer it too if they like, in fact it is open to everyone. The question that HTL has asked you is also a fair one too, and I am interested in your response and anyone else who answers it too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 Tell me, what is the difference between the fat man funding players, and executive X funding players? both are examples of the fans backing the club do you think there is a difference in the intended end result? well yes, actually I think there is, Its probable that when asked to fund the purchase of a player, executive x would expect to see something from scout/ manager etc to back up the price tag and reasoning from manager during a meeting as to the merits of said player/ who he would be replacing/ why hes needed etc. Shepherd on the other hand does not appear to do these things, purchases players off his own back (allegedly), has a son who now scouts for us "eeeeeh our Fatty Jr is geet good at his job hes spotted some young talent who Im going to pay 15million for" As for the end result: I dont doubt that as a fan Shepherd wants to see this club win things however deep down he wants to make money, that in itself is not a bad thing, fair play to him we all want to make cash. He however would appear to make financial decisions on behalf of the club which are done to benefit him (as an example see the whole warehouse and brother fiasco). If executive x was to be running it then yes, they would want to make cash but you would hope would have a long term plan and run it in a businesslike manner. Im fairly sure that executive x would also keep his/her gob firmly shut except during the shareholders meetings. Unconfirmed speculation, mate. Fact is, if it got out that the manager wanted to sign 'x' player but was over-ruled by Fred with the reason given that Fred thinks the player isn't worth signing all hell would break out. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't yet again. Surprised at you, like. What is your opinion about Sir Bobby saying that Shepherd tried to sell players behind his back? My opinion is that I'm not happy about it IF it's true, I don't know that it is. Are you happy with the principle of interference in team affairs by the Board of a football club? Do you want a Board that interferes, meaning you don't slag them when they do. Or do you think a Board should allow the manager free reign, which means you don't slag the Board for giving the manager free reign? You can't have both, obviously. I don't think you'll find many who don't want the manager to have a free reign, as long as he's the right manager of course. A good example is Sir Bobby, he was backed 100% when he took over and eventually we were rewarded for the faith the board showed in him with CL football, the problem was when the board didn't back him 100% and started to undermine his position (selling players behind his back, not providing him with 'pro zone' when other clubs were using it and announcing he wouldn't be manager after the end of the season) I'm not saying the board should have kept him or it was their fault it went wrong, as far as I was concerned it was his time to go however the way they went about it was just unprofessional IMO, having a manager in limbo isn't going to get us anywhere. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/2324/preachercopyqc1.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 Tell me, what is the difference between the fat man funding players, and executive X funding players? both are examples of the fans backing the club do you think there is a difference in the intended end result? well yes, actually I think there is, Its probable that when asked to fund the purchase of a player, executive x would expect to see something from scout/ manager etc to back up the price tag and reasoning from manager during a meeting as to the merits of said player/ who he would be replacing/ why hes needed etc. Shepherd on the other hand does not appear to do these things, purchases players off his own back (allegedly), has a son who now scouts for us "eeeeeh our Fatty Jr is geet good at his job hes spotted some young talent who Im going to pay 15million for" As for the end result: I dont doubt that as a fan Shepherd wants to see this club win things however deep down he wants to make money, that in itself is not a bad thing, fair play to him we all want to make cash. He however would appear to make financial decisions on behalf of the club which are done to benefit him (as an example see the whole warehouse and brother fiasco). If executive x was to be running it then yes, they would want to make cash but you would hope would have a long term plan and run it in a businesslike manner. Im fairly sure that executive x would also keep his/her gob firmly shut except during the shareholders meetings. Unconfirmed speculation, mate. Fact is, if it got out that the manager wanted to sign 'x' player but was over-ruled by Fred with the reason given that Fred thinks the player isn't worth signing all hell would break out. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't yet again. Surprised at you, like. What is your opinion about Sir Bobby saying that Shepherd tried to sell players behind his back? My opinion is that I'm not happy about it IF it's true, I don't know that it is. Are you happy with the principle of interference in team affairs by the Board of a football club? Do you want a Board that interferes, meaning you don't slag them when they do. Or do you think a Board should allow the manager free reign, which means you don't slag the Board for giving the manager free reign? You can't have both, obviously. I don't think you'll find many who don't want the manager to have a free reign, as long as he's the right manager of course. irrelevant. We all have an opinion as to who the right manager is, apart from obvious ones such as Ferguson and Wenger for instance. Plenty of people said Souness should have a free reign. This is a matter of principle. The club think they have the right manager, so you either have to think they are a good board for backing them, or a good board for interfering. You can't have both. A good example is Sir Bobby, he was backed 100% when he took over and eventually we were rewarded for the faith the board showed in him with CL football, the problem was when the board didn't back him 100% and started to undermine his position (selling players behind his back, not providing him with 'pro zone' when other clubs were using it and announcing he wouldn't be manager after the end of the season) I'm not saying the board should have kept him or it was their fault it went wrong, as far as I was concerned it was his time to go however the way they went about it was just unprofessional IMO, having a manager in limbo isn't going to get us anywhere. Basically, once a club feels the manager is wrong and its time to move on, then they have to take action. And again, at the time, the vast majority of fans agreed that his time and his best days were over. 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