Guest thompers Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 Johan Apart from hindsight, what is your criteria for the selection of a manager? Just curious. Do you believe the Board almost has a policy of appointing shit managers? The reality is they appoint managers with superb track records (apart from Roeder, they clearly changed tack here) and then back them to the hilt. Many of the managers people on here were clamouring for in the summer certainly do not have track records better than some of those people previously appointed by the Board. Dalglish springs immediately to mind, Robson is obvious but even Gullit and Souness had decent track records at previous clubs. Dalglish >> appointed a defensive manager to manage the most attacking team in football. Gullit >> appointed a manager who'd only ever managed one club, a club that he knew inside out from his playing days. So, so far from being described as 'proven' at the time. Robson >> Good appointment, but expecting him to keep us up the top, but not backing him and making additions to improve on an excellent season is a mistake, and only backing him when it seemed we were about to nosedive was pathetic. Souness >> Had Blackburn in relegation places. Paid for his services. Roeder >> Not even qualified. All shit/unproven appointments barring Robson, who they screwed over. Had Robson not lost the respect of the players they wouldn't have "screwed him over". Did Robson lose respect from the players because Shepherd said that Robson wouldn't have a job next season, or because Shepherd didn't say that Robson wouldn't have a job next season? Didn't expect that from you. Mick maybe, but not you. The team performances began to drop off during the latter stages of the season we finished 3rd, proven the following season when we finished 5th. The general behaviour of various players off the field was known to be a problem and was commonly complained about at the time, the manager failed to get them back into line, that's because they had no respect for Robson for quite some time. The players losing respect for the manager had nothing to do with your suggestion above. Oh, you mean after the "Bowyer summer" team performances began to drop? Could you therefore link this downward spiral to the board, for failing to provide funds in that summer? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 Johan Apart from hindsight, what is your criteria for the selection of a manager? Just curious. Do you believe the Board almost has a policy of appointing shit managers? The reality is they appoint managers with superb track records (apart from Roeder, they clearly changed tack here) and then back them to the hilt. Many of the managers people on here were clamouring for in the summer certainly do not have track records better than some of those people previously appointed by the Board. Dalglish springs immediately to mind, Robson is obvious but even Gullit and Souness had decent track records at previous clubs. Dalglish >> appointed a defensive manager to manage the most attacking team in football. Gullit >> appointed a manager who'd only ever managed one club, a club that he knew inside out from his playing days. So, so far from being described as 'proven' at the time. Robson >> Good appointment, but expecting him to keep us up the top, but not backing him and making additions to improve on an excellent season is a mistake, and only backing him when it seemed we were about to nosedive was pathetic. Souness >> Had Blackburn in relegation places. Paid for his services. Roeder >> Not even qualified. All shit/unproven appointments barring Robson, who they screwed over. Had Robson not lost the respect of the players they wouldn't have "screwed him over". Did Robson lose respect from the players because Shepherd said that Robson wouldn't have a job next season, or because Shepherd didn't say that Robson wouldn't have a job next season? Didn't expect that from you. Mick maybe, but not you. The team performances began to drop off during the latter stages of the season we finished 3rd, proven the following season when we finished 5th. The general behaviour of various players off the field was known to be a problem and was commonly complained about at the time, the manager failed to get them back into line, that's because they had no respect for Robson for quite some time. The players losing respect for the manager had nothing to do with your suggestion above. Oh, you mean after the "Bowyer summer" team performances began to drop? Could you therefore link this downward spiral to the board, for failing to provide funds in that summer? No, silly boy. You've obviously missed the numerous times it's been posted that ~£45m net had been spent on players in the previous 32 months to lift us to the position we were in that summer, this meaning a larger squad and so also a larger wage bill. I'll leave macbeth and mick to tell you how important it was to consolidate and not spend money the club didn't have. By 'Bowyer Summer' do you really mean 'Woodgate Winter'. If you don't, you should try engaging your little brain and getting your head out of your arse. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BooBoo Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 Johan Apart from hindsight, what is your criteria for the selection of a manager? Just curious. Do you believe the Board almost has a policy of appointing shit managers? The reality is they appoint managers with superb track records (apart from Roeder, they clearly changed tack here) and then back them to the hilt. Many of the managers people on here were clamouring for in the summer certainly do not have track records better than some of those people previously appointed by the Board. Dalglish springs immediately to mind, Robson is obvious but even Gullit and Souness had decent track records at previous clubs. Dalglish >> appointed a defensive manager to manage the most attacking team in football. Gullit >> appointed a manager who'd only ever managed one club, a club that he knew inside out from his playing days. So, so far from being described as 'proven' at the time. Robson >> Good appointment, but expecting him to keep us up the top, but not backing him and making additions to improve on an excellent season is a mistake, and only backing him when it seemed we were about to nosedive was pathetic. Souness >> Had Blackburn in relegation places. Paid for his services. Roeder >> Not even qualified. All shit/unproven appointments barring Robson, who they screwed over. Had Robson not lost the respect of the players they wouldn't have "screwed him over". Did Robson lose respect from the players because Shepherd said that Robson wouldn't have a job next season, or because Shepherd didn't say that Robson wouldn't have a job next season? Didn't expect that from you. Mick maybe, but not you. The team performances began to drop off during the latter stages of the season we finished 3rd, proven the following season when we finished 5th. The general behaviour of various players off the field was known to be a problem and was commonly complained about at the time, the manager failed to get them back into line, that's because they had no respect for Robson for quite some time. The players losing respect for the manager had nothing to do with your suggestion above. Oh, you mean after the "Bowyer summer" team performances began to drop? Could you therefore link this downward spiral to the board, for failing to provide funds in that summer? No, silly boy. You've obviously missed the numerous times it's been posted that ~£45m net had been spent on players in the previous 32 months to lift us to the position we were in that summer, this meaning a larger squad and so also a larger wage bill. I'll leave macbeth and mick to tell you how important it was to consolidate and not spend money the club didn't have. By 'Bowyer Summer' do you really mean 'Woodgate Winter'. If you don't, you should try engaging your little brain and getting your head out of your arse. Is it a bird? Is it a plane? Nope it's Superbore! :lazy: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 Johan Apart from hindsight, what is your criteria for the selection of a manager? Just curious. Do you believe the Board almost has a policy of appointing shit managers? The reality is they appoint managers with superb track records (apart from Roeder, they clearly changed tack here) and then back them to the hilt. Many of the managers people on here were clamouring for in the summer certainly do not have track records better than some of those people previously appointed by the Board. Dalglish springs immediately to mind, Robson is obvious but even Gullit and Souness had decent track records at previous clubs. Dalglish >> appointed a defensive manager to manage the most attacking team in football. Gullit >> appointed a manager who'd only ever managed one club, a club that he knew inside out from his playing days. So, so far from being described as 'proven' at the time. Robson >> Good appointment, but expecting him to keep us up the top, but not backing him and making additions to improve on an excellent season is a mistake, and only backing him when it seemed we were about to nosedive was pathetic. Souness >> Had Blackburn in relegation places. Paid for his services. Roeder >> Not even qualified. All shit/unproven appointments barring Robson, who they screwed over. Had Robson not lost the respect of the players they wouldn't have "screwed him over". Did Robson lose respect from the players because Shepherd said that Robson wouldn't have a job next season, or because Shepherd didn't say that Robson wouldn't have a job next season? Didn't expect that from you. Mick maybe, but not you. The team performances began to drop off during the latter stages of the season we finished 3rd, proven the following season when we finished 5th. The general behaviour of various players off the field was known to be a problem and was commonly complained about at the time, the manager failed to get them back into line, that's because they had no respect for Robson for quite some time. The players losing respect for the manager had nothing to do with your suggestion above. Oh, you mean after the "Bowyer summer" team performances began to drop? Could you therefore link this downward spiral to the board, for failing to provide funds in that summer? No, silly boy. You've obviously missed the numerous times it's been posted that ~£45m net had been spent on players in the previous 32 months to lift us to the position we were in that summer, this meaning a larger squad and so also a larger wage bill. I'll leave macbeth and mick to tell you how important it was to consolidate and not spend money the club didn't have. By 'Bowyer Summer' do you really mean 'Woodgate Winter'. If you don't, you should try engaging your little brain and getting your head out of your arse. Is it a bird? Is it a plane? Nope it's Superbore! :lazy: but you have nothing intelligent and/or factual to add to the factual information posted ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BooBoo Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 Ahh the Brothers Dimm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Ahh the Brothers Dimm. why not answer the questions and show us what you know about the club ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 So where have I criticised this board then Leazes or were you telling porky pies? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Johan Apart from hindsight, what is your criteria for the selection of a manager? Just curious. Do you believe the Board almost has a policy of appointing shit managers? The reality is they appoint managers with superb track records (apart from Roeder, they clearly changed tack here) and then back them to the hilt. Many of the managers people on here were clamouring for in the summer certainly do not have track records better than some of those people previously appointed by the Board. Dalglish springs immediately to mind, Robson is obvious but even Gullit and Souness had decent track records at previous clubs. Dalglish >> appointed a defensive manager to manage the most attacking team in football. Gullit >> appointed a manager who'd only ever managed one club, a club that he knew inside out from his playing days. So, so far from being described as 'proven' at the time. Robson >> Good appointment, but expecting him to keep us up the top, but not backing him and making additions to improve on an excellent season is a mistake, and only backing him when it seemed we were about to nosedive was pathetic. Souness >> Had Blackburn in relegation places. Paid for his services. Roeder >> Not even qualified. All shit/unproven appointments barring Robson, who they screwed over. Had Robson not lost the respect of the players they wouldn't have "screwed him over". Did Robson lose respect from the players because Shepherd said that Robson wouldn't have a job next season, or because Shepherd didn't say that Robson wouldn't have a job next season? Didn't expect that from you. Mick maybe, but not you. The team performances began to drop off during the latter stages of the season we finished 3rd, proven the following season when we finished 5th. The general behaviour of various players off the field was known to be a problem and was commonly complained about at the time, the manager failed to get them back into line, that's because they had no respect for Robson for quite some time. The players losing respect for the manager had nothing to do with your suggestion above. Oh, you mean after the "Bowyer summer" team performances began to drop? Could you therefore link this downward spiral to the board, for failing to provide funds in that summer? No, silly boy. You've obviously missed the numerous times it's been posted that ~£45m net had been spent on players in the previous 32 months to lift us to the position we were in that summer, this meaning a larger squad and so also a larger wage bill. I'll leave macbeth and mick to tell you how important it was to consolidate and not spend money the club didn't have. By 'Bowyer Summer' do you really mean 'Woodgate Winter'. If you don't, you should try engaging your little brain and getting your head out of your arse. Is it a bird? Is it a plane? Nope it's Superbore! :lazy: WOOP! WOOP! BORING ALERT!!!! bluelaugh.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Ahh the Brothers Dimm. WOOP! WOOP! BORING ALERT!!! bluelaugh.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thompers Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Johan Apart from hindsight, what is your criteria for the selection of a manager? Just curious. Do you believe the Board almost has a policy of appointing shit managers? The reality is they appoint managers with superb track records (apart from Roeder, they clearly changed tack here) and then back them to the hilt. Many of the managers people on here were clamouring for in the summer certainly do not have track records better than some of those people previously appointed by the Board. Dalglish springs immediately to mind, Robson is obvious but even Gullit and Souness had decent track records at previous clubs. Dalglish >> appointed a defensive manager to manage the most attacking team in football. Gullit >> appointed a manager who'd only ever managed one club, a club that he knew inside out from his playing days. So, so far from being described as 'proven' at the time. Robson >> Good appointment, but expecting him to keep us up the top, but not backing him and making additions to improve on an excellent season is a mistake, and only backing him when it seemed we were about to nosedive was pathetic. Souness >> Had Blackburn in relegation places. Paid for his services. Roeder >> Not even qualified. All shit/unproven appointments barring Robson, who they screwed over. Had Robson not lost the respect of the players they wouldn't have "screwed him over". Did Robson lose respect from the players because Shepherd said that Robson wouldn't have a job next season, or because Shepherd didn't say that Robson wouldn't have a job next season? Didn't expect that from you. Mick maybe, but not you. The team performances began to drop off during the latter stages of the season we finished 3rd, proven the following season when we finished 5th. The general behaviour of various players off the field was known to be a problem and was commonly complained about at the time, the manager failed to get them back into line, that's because they had no respect for Robson for quite some time. The players losing respect for the manager had nothing to do with your suggestion above. Oh, you mean after the "Bowyer summer" team performances began to drop? Could you therefore link this downward spiral to the board, for failing to provide funds in that summer? No, silly boy. You've obviously missed the numerous times it's been posted that ~£45m net had been spent on players in the previous 32 months to lift us to the position we were in that summer, this meaning a larger squad and so also a larger wage bill. I'll leave macbeth and mick to tell you how important it was to consolidate and not spend money the club didn't have. By 'Bowyer Summer' do you really mean 'Woodgate Winter'. If you don't, you should try engaging your little brain and getting your head out of your arse. The club clearly had money, but Shepherd only spends when we're on the way down, not the way up. It's called panic buying. If we'd have strengthened that summer, we'd have been challenging the year after. As it happens, we went downhill. Shepherd allowed that to happen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Johan Apart from hindsight, what is your criteria for the selection of a manager? Just curious. Do you believe the Board almost has a policy of appointing shit managers? The reality is they appoint managers with superb track records (apart from Roeder, they clearly changed tack here) and then back them to the hilt. Many of the managers people on here were clamouring for in the summer certainly do not have track records better than some of those people previously appointed by the Board. Dalglish springs immediately to mind, Robson is obvious but even Gullit and Souness had decent track records at previous clubs. Dalglish >> appointed a defensive manager to manage the most attacking team in football. Gullit >> appointed a manager who'd only ever managed one club, a club that he knew inside out from his playing days. So, so far from being described as 'proven' at the time. Robson >> Good appointment, but expecting him to keep us up the top, but not backing him and making additions to improve on an excellent season is a mistake, and only backing him when it seemed we were about to nosedive was pathetic. Souness >> Had Blackburn in relegation places. Paid for his services. Roeder >> Not even qualified. All shit/unproven appointments barring Robson, who they screwed over. Had Robson not lost the respect of the players they wouldn't have "screwed him over". Did Robson lose respect from the players because Shepherd said that Robson wouldn't have a job next season, or because Shepherd didn't say that Robson wouldn't have a job next season? Didn't expect that from you. Mick maybe, but not you. The team performances began to drop off during the latter stages of the season we finished 3rd, proven the following season when we finished 5th. The general behaviour of various players off the field was known to be a problem and was commonly complained about at the time, the manager failed to get them back into line, that's because they had no respect for Robson for quite some time. The players losing respect for the manager had nothing to do with your suggestion above. Oh, you mean after the "Bowyer summer" team performances began to drop? Could you therefore link this downward spiral to the board, for failing to provide funds in that summer? No, silly boy. You've obviously missed the numerous times it's been posted that ~£45m net had been spent on players in the previous 32 months to lift us to the position we were in that summer, this meaning a larger squad and so also a larger wage bill. I'll leave macbeth and mick to tell you how important it was to consolidate and not spend money the club didn't have. By 'Bowyer Summer' do you really mean 'Woodgate Winter'. If you don't, you should try engaging your little brain and getting your head out of your arse. The club clearly had money, but Shepherd only spends when we're on the way down, not the way up. It's called panic buying. If we'd have strengthened that summer, we'd have been challenging the year after. As it happens, we went downhill. Shepherd allowed that to happen. Now thompers, your posts would carry more substance if they were factual, as it is I don't know if you believe what you say, or are just making things up to look as bad as possible, although if you are you aren't the only one. What about Bellamy, Robert, Jenas, Viana, Bramble, Woodgate. Within the space of 2-3 years, at a cost of around 43 million quid. And every single one of them bought to propel the club upwards and keep going upwards. And that's not mentioning Carr, Kluivert, Milner and Butt when we were 5th. I wait for thickmick to come and tell us the board for 30 years pre-1992 always did this too Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Johan Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Man you are obsessed by the pre 92 board. Does the fact that the pre 92 board sucked big time give this present board the right to just regular suck? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thompers Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Johan Apart from hindsight, what is your criteria for the selection of a manager? Just curious. Do you believe the Board almost has a policy of appointing shit managers? The reality is they appoint managers with superb track records (apart from Roeder, they clearly changed tack here) and then back them to the hilt. Many of the managers people on here were clamouring for in the summer certainly do not have track records better than some of those people previously appointed by the Board. Dalglish springs immediately to mind, Robson is obvious but even Gullit and Souness had decent track records at previous clubs. Dalglish >> appointed a defensive manager to manage the most attacking team in football. Gullit >> appointed a manager who'd only ever managed one club, a club that he knew inside out from his playing days. So, so far from being described as 'proven' at the time. Robson >> Good appointment, but expecting him to keep us up the top, but not backing him and making additions to improve on an excellent season is a mistake, and only backing him when it seemed we were about to nosedive was pathetic. Souness >> Had Blackburn in relegation places. Paid for his services. Roeder >> Not even qualified. All shit/unproven appointments barring Robson, who they screwed over. Had Robson not lost the respect of the players they wouldn't have "screwed him over". Did Robson lose respect from the players because Shepherd said that Robson wouldn't have a job next season, or because Shepherd didn't say that Robson wouldn't have a job next season? Didn't expect that from you. Mick maybe, but not you. The team performances began to drop off during the latter stages of the season we finished 3rd, proven the following season when we finished 5th. The general behaviour of various players off the field was known to be a problem and was commonly complained about at the time, the manager failed to get them back into line, that's because they had no respect for Robson for quite some time. The players losing respect for the manager had nothing to do with your suggestion above. Oh, you mean after the "Bowyer summer" team performances began to drop? Could you therefore link this downward spiral to the board, for failing to provide funds in that summer? No, silly boy. You've obviously missed the numerous times it's been posted that ~£45m net had been spent on players in the previous 32 months to lift us to the position we were in that summer, this meaning a larger squad and so also a larger wage bill. I'll leave macbeth and mick to tell you how important it was to consolidate and not spend money the club didn't have. By 'Bowyer Summer' do you really mean 'Woodgate Winter'. If you don't, you should try engaging your little brain and getting your head out of your arse. The club clearly had money, but Shepherd only spends when we're on the way down, not the way up. It's called panic buying. If we'd have strengthened that summer, we'd have been challenging the year after. As it happens, we went downhill. Shepherd allowed that to happen. Now thompers, your posts would carry more substance if they were factual, as it is I don't know if you believe what you say, or are just making things up to look as bad as possible, although if you are you aren't the only one. What about Bellamy, Robert, Jenas, Viana, Bramble, Woodgate. Within the space of 2-3 years, at a cost of around 43 million quid. And every single one of them bought to propel the club upwards and keep going upwards. And that's not mentioning Carr, Kluivert, Milner and Butt when we were 5th. I wait for thickmick to come and tell us the board for 30 years pre-1992 always did this too Yes, we signed those players. Those players attained 3rd place. From there you have two options. Spend that little bit extra to push the front two closer, or don't spend anything and wait till we're in decline before the next big spending spree. The capable chairman chooses the former, our chairman chooses the latter. Where I'm not slating his ability to spend, but his timing and the patterns of our spending. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 Man you are obsessed by the pre 92 board. Does the fact that the pre 92 board sucked big time give this present board the right to just regular suck? briefly, I thought you were intelligent Johan, but now I think that having confirmed you are totally unable to accept the fact that the current board have improved the club massively during its time in charge, to be the view of what I call a skyboy. I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt. Shame. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 Johan Apart from hindsight, what is your criteria for the selection of a manager? Just curious. Do you believe the Board almost has a policy of appointing shit managers? The reality is they appoint managers with superb track records (apart from Roeder, they clearly changed tack here) and then back them to the hilt. Many of the managers people on here were clamouring for in the summer certainly do not have track records better than some of those people previously appointed by the Board. Dalglish springs immediately to mind, Robson is obvious but even Gullit and Souness had decent track records at previous clubs. Dalglish >> appointed a defensive manager to manage the most attacking team in football. Gullit >> appointed a manager who'd only ever managed one club, a club that he knew inside out from his playing days. So, so far from being described as 'proven' at the time. Robson >> Good appointment, but expecting him to keep us up the top, but not backing him and making additions to improve on an excellent season is a mistake, and only backing him when it seemed we were about to nosedive was pathetic. Souness >> Had Blackburn in relegation places. Paid for his services. Roeder >> Not even qualified. All shit/unproven appointments barring Robson, who they screwed over. Had Robson not lost the respect of the players they wouldn't have "screwed him over". Did Robson lose respect from the players because Shepherd said that Robson wouldn't have a job next season, or because Shepherd didn't say that Robson wouldn't have a job next season? Didn't expect that from you. Mick maybe, but not you. The team performances began to drop off during the latter stages of the season we finished 3rd, proven the following season when we finished 5th. The general behaviour of various players off the field was known to be a problem and was commonly complained about at the time, the manager failed to get them back into line, that's because they had no respect for Robson for quite some time. The players losing respect for the manager had nothing to do with your suggestion above. Oh, you mean after the "Bowyer summer" team performances began to drop? Could you therefore link this downward spiral to the board, for failing to provide funds in that summer? No, silly boy. You've obviously missed the numerous times it's been posted that ~£45m net had been spent on players in the previous 32 months to lift us to the position we were in that summer, this meaning a larger squad and so also a larger wage bill. I'll leave macbeth and mick to tell you how important it was to consolidate and not spend money the club didn't have. By 'Bowyer Summer' do you really mean 'Woodgate Winter'. If you don't, you should try engaging your little brain and getting your head out of your arse. The club clearly had money, but Shepherd only spends when we're on the way down, not the way up. It's called panic buying. If we'd have strengthened that summer, we'd have been challenging the year after. As it happens, we went downhill. Shepherd allowed that to happen. Now thompers, your posts would carry more substance if they were factual, as it is I don't know if you believe what you say, or are just making things up to look as bad as possible, although if you are you aren't the only one. What about Bellamy, Robert, Jenas, Viana, Bramble, Woodgate. Within the space of 2-3 years, at a cost of around 43 million quid. And every single one of them bought to propel the club upwards and keep going upwards. And that's not mentioning Carr, Kluivert, Milner and Butt when we were 5th. I wait for thickmick to come and tell us the board for 30 years pre-1992 always did this too Yes, we signed those players. Those players attained 3rd place. From there you have two options. Spend that little bit extra to push the front two closer, or don't spend anything and wait till we're in decline before the next big spending spree. The capable chairman chooses the former, our chairman chooses the latter. Where I'm not slating his ability to spend, but his timing and the patterns of our spending. I'm sure that macbeth and his monkey, or his brother, ie thickmick, will come along and lecture you as to how not spending the money the club doesn't have is preferable to showing ambition or aiming for success. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 So where have I criticised this board then Leazes or were you telling porky pies? You not going to answer this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thompers Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 Johan Apart from hindsight, what is your criteria for the selection of a manager? Just curious. Do you believe the Board almost has a policy of appointing shit managers? The reality is they appoint managers with superb track records (apart from Roeder, they clearly changed tack here) and then back them to the hilt. Many of the managers people on here were clamouring for in the summer certainly do not have track records better than some of those people previously appointed by the Board. Dalglish springs immediately to mind, Robson is obvious but even Gullit and Souness had decent track records at previous clubs. Dalglish >> appointed a defensive manager to manage the most attacking team in football. Gullit >> appointed a manager who'd only ever managed one club, a club that he knew inside out from his playing days. So, so far from being described as 'proven' at the time. Robson >> Good appointment, but expecting him to keep us up the top, but not backing him and making additions to improve on an excellent season is a mistake, and only backing him when it seemed we were about to nosedive was pathetic. Souness >> Had Blackburn in relegation places. Paid for his services. Roeder >> Not even qualified. All shit/unproven appointments barring Robson, who they screwed over. Had Robson not lost the respect of the players they wouldn't have "screwed him over". Did Robson lose respect from the players because Shepherd said that Robson wouldn't have a job next season, or because Shepherd didn't say that Robson wouldn't have a job next season? Didn't expect that from you. Mick maybe, but not you. The team performances began to drop off during the latter stages of the season we finished 3rd, proven the following season when we finished 5th. The general behaviour of various players off the field was known to be a problem and was commonly complained about at the time, the manager failed to get them back into line, that's because they had no respect for Robson for quite some time. The players losing respect for the manager had nothing to do with your suggestion above. Oh, you mean after the "Bowyer summer" team performances began to drop? Could you therefore link this downward spiral to the board, for failing to provide funds in that summer? No, silly boy. You've obviously missed the numerous times it's been posted that ~£45m net had been spent on players in the previous 32 months to lift us to the position we were in that summer, this meaning a larger squad and so also a larger wage bill. I'll leave macbeth and mick to tell you how important it was to consolidate and not spend money the club didn't have. By 'Bowyer Summer' do you really mean 'Woodgate Winter'. If you don't, you should try engaging your little brain and getting your head out of your arse. The club clearly had money, but Shepherd only spends when we're on the way down, not the way up. It's called panic buying. If we'd have strengthened that summer, we'd have been challenging the year after. As it happens, we went downhill. Shepherd allowed that to happen. Now thompers, your posts would carry more substance if they were factual, as it is I don't know if you believe what you say, or are just making things up to look as bad as possible, although if you are you aren't the only one. What about Bellamy, Robert, Jenas, Viana, Bramble, Woodgate. Within the space of 2-3 years, at a cost of around 43 million quid. And every single one of them bought to propel the club upwards and keep going upwards. And that's not mentioning Carr, Kluivert, Milner and Butt when we were 5th. I wait for thickmick to come and tell us the board for 30 years pre-1992 always did this too Yes, we signed those players. Those players attained 3rd place. From there you have two options. Spend that little bit extra to push the front two closer, or don't spend anything and wait till we're in decline before the next big spending spree. The capable chairman chooses the former, our chairman chooses the latter. Where I'm not slating his ability to spend, but his timing and the patterns of our spending. I'm sure that macbeth and his monkey, or his brother, ie thickmick, will come along and lecture you as to how not spending the money the club doesn't have is preferable to showing ambition or aiming for success. But he did spend money we didn't have, when we started to decline. If he's going to spend money we don't have, at least get the timing right. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 I'm not a big fan of Shepherd but to suggest (as Thompers does) he didn't back Robson is ludicrous. He was given plenty money after he'd signed some absolute duffers for megabucks. I expected that comment from NE5 or HTL but not you. "but not backing him and making additions to improve on an excellent season is a mistake" is that hard to grasp that I was talking about a specific summer and not his whole reign? Ludicrous! The reason he 'wasn't backed' in the specific summer you talk about might have something to do with Robson getting £9million to spend on Woodgate the January before. To view things in microcosm and not to look at the bigger picture (or in this case 6 months earlier) is, to use your phrase, ludicrous. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 I'm not a big fan of Shepherd but to suggest (as Thompers does) he didn't back Robson is ludicrous. He was given plenty money after he'd signed some absolute duffers for megabucks. I expected that comment from NE5 or HTL but not you. "but not backing him and making additions to improve on an excellent season is a mistake" is that hard to grasp that I was talking about a specific summer and not his whole reign? Ludicrous! The reason he 'wasn't backed' in the specific summer you talk about might have something to do with Robson getting £9million to spend on Woodgate the January before. To view things in microcosm and not to look at the bigger picture (or in this case 6 months earlier) is, to use your phrase, ludicrous. Absolutely. This has been pointed out before but is ignored every time. The club could have waited and signed Woodgate in the summer, but signing him in January showed the ambition of the club to buy when we were winning. We later added Bowyer and Ambrose, further increasing the depth of the squad and the wage bill. That kind of ambition doesn't suddenly disappear a few months later, to suggest it does is laughable. It took ambition to spend ~£45m over a 32 month period to move the club up from mid table to that place in the top half dozen in the country, increasing the squad size and therefore the wage bill. It seems really difficult for some to understand that there must be a period of consolidation at some stage, the club doesn't have a bottomless pit of money and so they should be applauded for that summer for not over stretching. Macbeth should understand this and be in favour of the prudence of the Board, he should also PM his brother giving him permission to be in favour as well, but that wouldn't fit with their agenda. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest elbee909 Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 Absolutely. This has been pointed out before but is ignored every time. The club could have waited and signed Woodgate in the summer, but signing him in January showed the ambition of the club to buy when we were winning. We later added Bowyer and Ambrose, further increasing the depth of the squad and the wage bill. That kind of ambition doesn't suddenly disappear a few months later, to suggest it does is laughable. I'm not really sure if the Woodgate purchase was entirely for the reason you mentioned - seemed a lot more like 'taking advantage of Leeds' precarious financial position' - in fact each one of those signings were us taking advantage of the financial position of the players' respective clubs. We thought there were bargains to be had with re-sell value; that seems to have been the defining reason to purchase those players - and the fact that we no longer have any of them would bear that out. And we've never replaced Woodgate, of course. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 Absolutely. This has been pointed out before but is ignored every time. The club could have waited and signed Woodgate in the summer, but signing him in January showed the ambition of the club to buy when we were winning. We later added Bowyer and Ambrose, further increasing the depth of the squad and the wage bill. That kind of ambition doesn't suddenly disappear a few months later, to suggest it does is laughable. I'm not really sure if the Woodgate purchase was entirely for the reason you mentioned - seemed a lot more like 'taking advantage of Leeds' precarious financial position' - in fact each one of those signings were us taking advantage of the financial position of the players' respective clubs. We thought there were bargains to be had with re-sell value; that seems to have been the defining reason to purchase those players - and the fact that we no longer have any of them would bear that out. And we've never replaced Woodgate, of course. Jesus Wept! :roll: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 Man you are obsessed by the pre 92 board. Does the fact that the pre 92 board sucked big time give this present board the right to just regular suck? briefly, I thought you were intelligent Johan, but now I think that having confirmed you are totally unable to accept the fact that the current board have improved the club massively during its time in charge, to be the view of what I call a skyboy. I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt. Shame. 2nd to 15th is not an improvement, £millions in the black to £millions in the red is no improvement, that's what Shepherd has done, where's the improvement? The only thing he has done right while increasing his personal fortune is to expand the ground which was all planned while Sir John was at the club and he's built up the training facilities, that was done by him at the insistence of Sir Bobby but at least he's done it, oh, we won an award for our catering, featured in a movie and our ground was used by Sky for "The Match." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 I'm sure that macbeth and his monkey, or his brother, ie thickmick, will come along and lecture you as to how not spending the money the club doesn't have is preferable to showing ambition or aiming for success. I only know of two brothers who post on here and you're one of them, they've both denied it for many months while backing each other up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest elbee909 Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 Absolutely. This has been pointed out before but is ignored every time. The club could have waited and signed Woodgate in the summer, but signing him in January showed the ambition of the club to buy when we were winning. We later added Bowyer and Ambrose, further increasing the depth of the squad and the wage bill. That kind of ambition doesn't suddenly disappear a few months later, to suggest it does is laughable. I'm not really sure if the Woodgate purchase was entirely for the reason you mentioned - seemed a lot more like 'taking advantage of Leeds' precarious financial position' - in fact each one of those signings were us taking advantage of the financial position of the players' respective clubs. We thought there were bargains to be had with re-sell value; that seems to have been the defining reason to purchase those players - and the fact that we no longer have any of them would bear that out. And we've never replaced Woodgate, of course. Jesus Wept! :roll: :roll: :roll: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 I'm not a big fan of Shepherd but to suggest (as Thompers does) he didn't back Robson is ludicrous. He was given plenty money after he'd signed some absolute duffers for megabucks. I expected that comment from NE5 or HTL but not you. "but not backing him and making additions to improve on an excellent season is a mistake" is that hard to grasp that I was talking about a specific summer and not his whole reign? Ludicrous! The reason he 'wasn't backed' in the specific summer you talk about might have something to do with Robson getting £9million to spend on Woodgate the January before. To view things in microcosm and not to look at the bigger picture (or in this case 6 months earlier) is, to use your phrase, ludicrous. abso-lootley. Its simply amazing how many people completely fail to grasp this. 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