Freddy defending himself. Again. Yawn.

[Guest thompers]

What is a trophy player then? Tell me, seeing as you don't think that my assessment is correct.

 

Keegan was a trophy signing. Big player, past his best, designed to make the fans think you are a big club, when you are in the 2nd division and have no intention of living up to your potential.

 

However, a premiership club playing in europe don't make trophy signings, they make quality signings designed to go higher and win the trophies. These are players that the clubs above you want, because its the only way you will catch them and beat them.

 

Understand ?

 

 

 

My description was much better and more accurate, tbh. What are the advantages of buying players on the decline from a big club, for example Duff, other than that they are a big name player?

 

[Guest thompers]

 

:roll:

 

But the sacking of Gullit was timed ok?

 

     

 

Gullit resigned but don't let facts get in the way of a good argument, if you were a supporter then you would have known that.

 

[NE5]

Example: Sir Bobby wanting Miguel, Shephard wanting Carr. Bids made for Miguel are below valutaion and rejected, bids made for Carr accepted, Sir Bobby agrees that its better to have Carr than noone, Shephard's statement of "I don't interfere with transfers and it is ludicrous to suggest that I bring in the players or make signings without the manager being involved" holds.

 

unbelievable.

 

I will leave macbeth - and maybe his monkey - to explain that Carr cost a lot less money and maybe he felt at that time he needed to watch the books. I wait for you to post in future criticising the club for overspending. As classic a case of "damned if they do damned if they don't" as it would be possible to find.

 

And for the record, I would have liked Miguel, I think he is one of the best right backs going.

 

No money for Miguel, yet we had 25mill to spare to sign Rooney that same summer?

 

Care to explain that, bearing in mind that Sir Bobby wanted us to buy Miguel for 5/6mill before Euro 2004 - which Shephard refused - and the 25mill Rooney bid was made after Euro 2004?

 

Sir Bobby wanted Miguel at a time when Shephard had a huge amount of cash tucked away, yet Shephard denied Sir Bobby those funds because he had other plans for that money, ie a mammoth bid for Rooney later on (and eventually, Owen when Souness wanted Anelka).

 

did Bobby Robson also want Rooney ? I would be staggered if he didn't.

 

I will allow macbeth and his monkey - again - to explain the importance of financial restraint to you, and while following their policy made Carr the player we got and not Miguel. They should be pleased that we did this.

 

I'm not even going to comment on preferring Anelka to Owen, its nothing other than mind blowing stupidity.

 

 

 

I'm pretty positive that Robson did want Rooney. As would every manager in the world. I'm also pretty positive that Robson, unlike Shepherd, has a brain and if given £25 million, would rather use it wisely and buy a few player rather than spend it all on Rooney. I'm sure given the opportunity he'd want Rooney, but do you think if he was given £25m and the choice of how to spend it, that he'd opt to blow the lot on Rooney? No, only one fat bastard is that stupid. How many clubs do you know that would make a £25m signing, apart from those that can afford to do so regularly? We're the only club stupid enough to throw our fortune onto one player. Liverpool can't afford £25million players, that's why they manage their resources wisely and don't put all their eggs into one basket. That is why they wins things, and it's also why we don't. It's just fucking stupid on our part, to be honest.

 

Build from the back, lay the foundations, then add a £17m Owen to your team and you might win a cup.

 

Throw a £17m Owen into a sack of shite and we'll win nothing.

 

It's quite a basic concept. I'm not in charge of a premiership football club and even I can grasp that we need foundations before the big money striker. So why is Freddy Shepherd the only man in football that doesn't grasp it?

 

Can you name me another example of a shit team blowing their budget on one player?

 

If you had given me 25m quid that summer, with a team 5th in the league, and the imminent departure of Alan Shearer on the horizon, I would have bought Rooney for Newcastle, without any doubt whatsoever.

 

Liverpool, when they were winning the titles, bought the best players at the top prices when it was necessary, and broke the British transfer record on more than one occasion. It is the only way to do it, with good judgement from the managers. We were 5th in the league. The only way you go higher is to have players that the teams above you want, not players who are no better than the ones they have themselves.

 

 

[NE5]

 

:roll:

 

But the sacking of Gullit was timed ok?

 

     

 

Gullit resigned but don't let facts get in the way of a good argument, if you were a supporter then you would have known that.

 

 

Resigned before he was sacked. But as usual, macbeths monkey distorts facts and doesn't answer truthful information ie the post containing all our factual league positions over the last 30+ years.

 

 

[Mick]

 

Of course, this is what I've been saying for ages. Any old smart arse can use hindsight, and plenty do.

 

To amplify my comments about Miguel, I don't necessarily think the club overspent on Owen, it is always worth going the extra mile for proven quality, it is others who advocate not doing this. Then criticise when they do.  :roll:

 

In the end, it boils down to professional judgment. The club is in the financial state it is in because of wasting transfer money on Boumsong and Luque, rather than Owen. Along with selling Bellamy. Thats not hindsight either, because I and others said that at the time too.

 

If the chairman can support his manager in the transfer market, then he is showing his aims and ambitions as best as possible, you can't say you want him to do this then criticise him if the player doesn't succeed, that is the managers judgement that has failed. You either want this approach, or you want him to exercise severe financial restraint over his manager. Which is it ?

 

 

 

We didn't go the extra mile for Owen, we virtually doubled what our only rival for his signature was prepared to pay for him, more NE5 spin.  Plenty of us thought Owen wasn't a good signing because we felt his injury record was poor and that has been shown to be true, even if the injuries are not what we expected.

 

How the hell can you say that "The club is in the financial state it is in because of wasting transfer money on Boumsong and Luque, rather than Owen."  Owen had only been involved in 11 games in more than 12 months, so far he's been a big part of the problem and I will put a months wages on him not selling for what we paid for him.

[Guest BooBoo]

WOOP! WOOP!

 

BORING ALERT!!!!!!!

 

bluesleep.gif bluesleep.gif bluesleep.gif bluesleep.gif

[Guest thompers]

The only way you go higher is to have players that the teams above you want, not players who are no better than the ones they have themselves.

 

 

So why have we signed Duff, Babayaro, Parker and Butt. Clearly, the teams above us DIDN'T want them. Surely by your logic, those signings are going to contribute nothing if we have aspirations to go higher?

[Cronky]

It's one of those denials which only fuel suspicion. Looking at the detail, he's only denying things that he's never been accused of in the first place - buying a player without the consent of the manager, taking part in team selection, getting involved on the training pitch.

 

 

[Mick]

What is a trophy player then? Tell me, seeing as you don't think that my assessment is correct.

 

Keegan was a trophy signing. Big player, past his best, designed to make the fans think you are a big club, when you are in the 2nd division and have no intention of living up to your potential.

 

However, a premiership club playing in europe don't make trophy signings, they make quality signings designed to go higher and win the trophies. These are players that the clubs above you want, because its the only way you will catch them and beat them.

 

Understand ?

 

 

 

Was Owen a trophy signing?

[tmonkey]

Example: Sir Bobby wanting Miguel, Shephard wanting Carr. Bids made for Miguel are below valutaion and rejected, bids made for Carr accepted, Sir Bobby agrees that its better to have Carr than noone, Shephard's statement of "I don't interfere with transfers and it is ludicrous to suggest that I bring in the players or make signings without the manager being involved" holds.

 

unbelievable.

 

I will leave macbeth - and maybe his monkey - to explain that Carr cost a lot less money and maybe he felt at that time he needed to watch the books. I wait for you to post in future criticising the club for overspending. As classic a case of "damned if they do damned if they don't" as it would be possible to find.

 

And for the record, I would have liked Miguel, I think he is one of the best right backs going.

 

No money for Miguel, yet we had 25mill to spare to sign Rooney that same summer?

 

Care to explain that, bearing in mind that Sir Bobby wanted us to buy Miguel for 5/6mill before Euro 2004 - which Shephard refused - and the 25mill Rooney bid was made after Euro 2004?

 

Sir Bobby wanted Miguel at a time when Shephard had a huge amount of cash tucked away, yet Shephard denied Sir Bobby those funds because he had other plans for that money, ie a mammoth bid for Rooney later on (and eventually, Owen when Souness wanted Anelka).

 

did Bobby Robson also want Rooney ? I would be staggered if he didn't.

 

I will allow macbeth and his monkey - again - to explain the importance of financial restraint to you, and while following their policy made Carr the player we got and not Miguel. They should be pleased that we did this.

 

I'm not even going to comment on preferring Anelka to Owen, its nothing other than mind blowing stupidity.

 

Scroll up a bit and see my post again, I edited it straight away to make it clearer - once you do, youll realise youve entirely missed the point of it with regards to your first question.

 

As for asking me again, its been answered in that post - we werent in a tight financial situation, there was tons of money to spend, the difference is that Robson wanted to spend it on several good players, whilst Shephard wanted to sign several budget players and splash the cash on one big summer signing. Whether he was correct to do so or not (hindsight shows he was badly mistaken) is irrelevant - its all about Shephard refusing to back his managers with regards to who they want, and forcing their hand by holding back funds and eliminating those preferred players, and eventually/submissively getting approval for whoever it is that he (Shephard) wants.

 

how do you know ? Do you have proof ? He is saying today he doesn't and hasn't.

 

I would say, possibly, that Shepherd, as with most chairman, wouldn't have heard of some of the foreigners we have bought, which blows away your opinion completely.

 

Is that meant to be a reply? Asking completely ambigious questions that make little sense? Cant deal with the issued raised, so now youre asking for proof?

 

Anyway, ill answer yet another pathetic attempt to avoid actually discussing a serious negative issue with Shephard.

 

How do I know? Do I have proof? Because we pulled out of the Miguel deal because of the 5/6mill price tag, and we then made a 22-25 mill bid for Rooney a few months later.

 

How else do I know? Sir Bobby wouldnt have wanted Miguel and whoever else it is he wanted (Beattie?) if he knew before Euro 2004 that wed later be bidding 20+ mill on Rooney. Makes no sense.

 

How else? Because Sir Bobby either did not know about the Rooney bid until it was made, or (as someone said on here) was merely asked if he would like Rooney. That wouldnt have been until after Euro 2004. So all that time, there was money sitting in Freddy's coffers, and he was refusing to spend money on who the manager wanted.

 

And hes not saying "he doesnt" piss about with low bids when the manager wants a player he doesnt. Hes saying he doesnt sign players without input from managers - completely different topic altogether, and its not what is being argued against Shephard. In case youve forgotten, its another straw-man arguement - build a straw man up that you can knock down and pretend it represents the opposition.

 

I will repeat myself here. What is being argued is that Shephard firstly refuses to spend the required amount on players who his manager wants, but then spends big on players who he wants after his managers' targets have been rejected.

 

Stick with the points being discussed.

[NE5]

 

Of course, this is what I've been saying for ages. Any old smart arse can use hindsight, and plenty do.

 

To amplify my comments about Miguel, I don't necessarily think the club overspent on Owen, it is always worth going the extra mile for proven quality, it is others who advocate not doing this. Then criticise when they do.  :roll:

 

In the end, it boils down to professional judgment. The club is in the financial state it is in because of wasting transfer money on Boumsong and Luque, rather than Owen. Along with selling Bellamy. Thats not hindsight either, because I and others said that at the time too.

 

If the chairman can support his manager in the transfer market, then he is showing his aims and ambitions as best as possible, you can't say you want him to do this then criticise him if the player doesn't succeed, that is the managers judgement that has failed. You either want this approach, or you want him to exercise severe financial restraint over his manager. Which is it ?

 

 

 

We didn't go the extra mile for Owen, we virtually doubled what our only rival for his signature was prepared to pay for him, more NE5 spin.  Plenty of us thought Owen wasn't a good signing because we felt his injury record was poor and that has been shown to be true, even if the injuries are not what we expected.

 

How the hell can you say that "The club is in the financial state it is in because of wasting transfer money on Boumsong and Luque, rather than Owen."  Owen had only been involved in 11 games in more than 12 months, so far he's been a big part of the problem and I will put a months wages on him not selling for what we paid for him.

 

Oh Dear.

 

How much will we lose when Luque joins Boumsong in the departure lounge .....

 

You still haven't commented or gave a response to those league positions ? I'm pleased you think qualifying for europe regularly is no different to being in the 2nd division regularly.

 

 

[Mick]

 

I hope you are going to explain to these people that signing Carr instead of Miguel, was because the club was following the policy of watching the books before quality, that you keep saying they should do ?

 

TIA.

 

 

 

No I'm not going to explain that, it was Shepherd not taking notice of his manager, the manager who brought Shepherd his best 3 seasons while being given the least amount of money per season since Ardilles was manager and right up to this day.  The man who probably generated the most money for the club was given the least to invest in the squad, Fact.

 

Shepherd invests our money at the wrong times, he backs the wrong managers the most and he does it to bail himself out in desperation when things go wrong, fact.

[tmonkey]

It's one of those denials which only fuel suspicion. Looking at the detail, he's only denying things that he's never been accused of in the first place - buying a player without the consent of the manager, taking part in team selection, getting involved on the training pitch.

 

Spot on.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[Mick]

 

:roll:

 

But the sacking of Gullit was timed ok?

 

     

 

Gullit resigned but don't let facts get in the way of a good argument, if you were a supporter then you would have known that.

 

 

Resigned before he was sacked. But as usual, macbeths monkey distorts facts and doesn't answer truthful information ie the post containing all our factual league positions over the last 30+ years.

 

 

 

No facts were distorted by me, they were distorted by your brother, Gullit resigned, fact.  He was not sacked so that is a distortion of the facts you fool.

[Mick]

 

Of course, this is what I've been saying for ages. Any old smart arse can use hindsight, and plenty do.

 

To amplify my comments about Miguel, I don't necessarily think the club overspent on Owen, it is always worth going the extra mile for proven quality, it is others who advocate not doing this. Then criticise when they do.  :roll:

 

In the end, it boils down to professional judgment. The club is in the financial state it is in because of wasting transfer money on Boumsong and Luque, rather than Owen. Along with selling Bellamy. Thats not hindsight either, because I and others said that at the time too.

 

If the chairman can support his manager in the transfer market, then he is showing his aims and ambitions as best as possible, you can't say you want him to do this then criticise him if the player doesn't succeed, that is the managers judgement that has failed. You either want this approach, or you want him to exercise severe financial restraint over his manager. Which is it ?

 

 

 

We didn't go the extra mile for Owen, we virtually doubled what our only rival for his signature was prepared to pay for him, more NE5 spin.  Plenty of us thought Owen wasn't a good signing because we felt his injury record was poor and that has been shown to be true, even if the injuries are not what we expected.

 

How the hell can you say that "The club is in the financial state it is in because of wasting transfer money on Boumsong and Luque, rather than Owen."  Owen had only been involved in 11 games in more than 12 months, so far he's been a big part of the problem and I will put a months wages on him not selling for what we paid for him.

 

Oh Dear.

 

How much will we lose when Luque joins Boumsong in the departure lounge .....

 

You still haven't commented or gave a response to those league positions ? I'm pleased you think qualifying for europe regularly is no different to being in the 2nd division regularly.

 

 

 

You're making yourself look like an idiot again, the money we lose on Luque and have lost on Boumsong is not a reason to make losing money on Owen any better or acceptable, think before you type.

[James]

tmonkey, youve made some very good points there which tie in with my earlier post, although you have missed one thing which would add more credence to your own argument.

 

Robson had identified his target right back long before Euro2004 - it was Seitaridis the best right back of the tournament, but Shepherd would not bid for him before the World Cup, citing a ridiculous opinion that we should wait and see how well he does in the tournament. Subsequently someone else (Moscow?) bought him before Euro2004 with Shepherd steadfastedly refusing to bid - obviously he had something planned for after the tournament.

 

Miguel was only bidded for on the back of a good tournament (although Robson was probably already well aware of him).

[Rich]

tmonkey, youve made some very good points there which tie in with my earlier post, although you have missed one thing which would add more credence to your own argument.

 

Robson had identified his target right back long before Euro2004 - it was Seitaridis the best right back of the tournament, but Shepherd would not bid for him before the World Cup, citing a ridiculous opinion that we should wait and see how well he does in the tournament. Subsequently someone else (Moscow?) bought him before Euro2004 with Shepherd steadfastedly refusing to bid - obviously he had something planned for after the tournament.

 

Miguel was only bidded for on the back of a good tournament (although Robson was probably already well aware of him).

 

Porto for Seitaridis, and the situation with us was a complete farce IIRC.

[NE5]

What is a trophy player then? Tell me, seeing as you don't think that my assessment is correct.

 

Keegan was a trophy signing. Big player, past his best, designed to make the fans think you are a big club, when you are in the 2nd division and have no intention of living up to your potential.

 

However, a premiership club playing in europe don't make trophy signings, they make quality signings designed to go higher and win the trophies. These are players that the clubs above you want, because its the only way you will catch them and beat them.

 

Understand ?

 

 

 

Was Owen a trophy signing?

 

A quality signing.

 

Were Gazza, Waddle and Beardsley trophy signings by Spurs and Liverpool ?

 

As you are against signing big money players, you should be happy we bought Carr instead of Miguel. So I hope in future you will praise the board for not making big money "trophy" signings, as you call them.

 

Why don't you answer questions ie the league positions that have been posted, and stick to the points discussed

[NE5]

 

I hope you are going to explain to these people that signing Carr instead of Miguel, was because the club was following the policy of watching the books before quality, that you keep saying they should do ?

 

TIA.

 

 

 

No I'm not going to explain that, it was Shepherd not taking notice of his manager, the manager who brought Shepherd his best 3 seasons while being given the least amount of money per season since Ardilles was manager and right up to this day.  The man who probably generated the most money for the club was given the least to invest in the squad, Fact.

 

Shepherd invests our money at the wrong times, he backs the wrong managers the most and he does it to bail himself out in desperation when things go wrong, fact.

 

I didn't think you would.

 

Are you now going to say that the 30+ years of league positions are made up 

[NE5]

Example: Sir Bobby wanting Miguel, Shephard wanting Carr. Bids made for Miguel are below valutaion and rejected, bids made for Carr accepted, Sir Bobby agrees that its better to have Carr than noone, Shephard's statement of "I don't interfere with transfers and it is ludicrous to suggest that I bring in the players or make signings without the manager being involved" holds.

 

unbelievable.

 

I will leave macbeth - and maybe his monkey - to explain that Carr cost a lot less money and maybe he felt at that time he needed to watch the books. I wait for you to post in future criticising the club for overspending. As classic a case of "damned if they do damned if they don't" as it would be possible to find.

 

And for the record, I would have liked Miguel, I think he is one of the best right backs going.

 

No money for Miguel, yet we had 25mill to spare to sign Rooney that same summer?

 

Care to explain that, bearing in mind that Sir Bobby wanted us to buy Miguel for 5/6mill before Euro 2004 - which Shephard refused - and the 25mill Rooney bid was made after Euro 2004?

 

Sir Bobby wanted Miguel at a time when Shephard had a huge amount of cash tucked away, yet Shephard denied Sir Bobby those funds because he had other plans for that money, ie a mammoth bid for Rooney later on (and eventually, Owen when Souness wanted Anelka).

 

did Bobby Robson also want Rooney ? I would be staggered if he didn't.

 

I will allow macbeth and his monkey - again - to explain the importance of financial restraint to you, and while following their policy made Carr the player we got and not Miguel. They should be pleased that we did this.

 

I'm not even going to comment on preferring Anelka to Owen, its nothing other than mind blowing stupidity.

 

Scroll up a bit and see my post again, I edited it straight away to make it clearer - once you do, youll realise youve entirely missed the point of it with regards to your first question.

 

As for asking me again, its been answered in that post - we werent in a tight financial situation, there was tons of money to spend, the difference is that Robson wanted to spend it on several good players, whilst Shephard wanted to sign several budget players and splash the cash on one big summer signing. Whether he was correct to do so or not (hindsight shows he was badly mistaken) is irrelevant - its all about Shephard refusing to back his managers with regards to who they want, and forcing their hand by holding back funds and eliminating those preferred players, and eventually/submissively getting approval for whoever it is that he (Shephard) wants.

 

how do you know ? Do you have proof ? He is saying today he doesn't and hasn't.

 

I would say, possibly, that Shepherd, as with most chairman, wouldn't have heard of some of the foreigners we have bought, which blows away your opinion completely.

 

Is that meant to be a reply? Asking completely ambigious questions that make little sense? Cant deal with the issued raised, so now youre asking for proof?

 

Anyway, ill answer yet another pathetic attempt to avoid actually discussing a serious negative issue with Shephard.

 

How do I know? Do I have proof? Because we pulled out of the Miguel deal because of the 5/6mill price tag, and we then made a 22-25 mill bid for Rooney a few months later.

 

How else do I know? Sir Bobby wouldnt have wanted Miguel and whoever else it is he wanted (Beattie?) if he knew before Euro 2004 that wed later be bidding 20+ mill on Rooney. Makes no sense.

 

How else? Because Sir Bobby either did not know about the Rooney bid until it was made, or (as someone said on here) was merely asked if he would like Rooney. That wouldnt have been until after Euro 2004. So all that time, there was money sitting in Freddy's coffers, and he was refusing to spend money on who the manager wanted.

 

And hes not saying "he doesnt" piss about with low bids when the manager wants a player he doesnt. Hes saying he doesnt sign players without input from managers - completely different topic altogether, and its not what is being argued against Shephard. In case youve forgotten, its another straw-man arguement - build a straw man up that you can knock down and pretend it represents the opposition.

 

I will repeat myself here. What is being argued is that Shephard firstly refuses to spend the required amount on players who his manager wants, but then spends big on players who he wants after his managers' targets have been rejected.

 

Stick with the points being discussed.

 

the points are in the initial thread. He says the manager has chosen his own players.

 

Do you or do you not want the club to buy big money players or not ? If you do, don't complain when they do, and if you don't, don't complain when they don't...and also if you don't, then true mediocrity awaits, for those who think the last decade has been mediocre.

Macbeths monkey will explain how we have always played regularly in europe, like the last decade, as it is no different to what went before.

 

 

[Rich]

What is a trophy player then? Tell me, seeing as you don't think that my assessment is correct.

 

Keegan was a trophy signing. Big player, past his best, designed to make the fans think you are a big club, when you are in the 2nd division and have no intention of living up to your potential.

 

However, a premiership club playing in europe don't make trophy signings, they make quality signings designed to go higher and win the trophies. These are players that the clubs above you want, because its the only way you will catch them and beat them.

 

Understand ?

 

 

 

Was Owen a trophy signing?

 

A quality signing.

 

Were Gazza, Waddle and Beardsley trophy signings by Spurs and Liverpool ?

 

As you are against signing big money players, you should be happy we bought Carr instead of Miguel. So I hope in future you will praise the board for not making big money "trophy" signings, as you call them.

 

Why don't you answer questions ie the league positions that have been posted, and stick to the points discussed

 

At an absolutely critical time in our history (Shearer retiring and a replacement being needed) how can you possibly justify £17m for 11 games and 7 goals in the period of almost 17 months a "quality" signing?

 

In theory perhaps, but not so in practice.

 

To me it qualifies as a "trophy signing" because he was bought for his name value, whether he'd ever be fit seemed to be a complete afterthought (and he certainly had a dodgy record when it comes to injury.)

 

Before you start with "Owen kept us up last season", which he certainly did help to do when he was fit, I can't help but feel that the chances of avoiding relegation, or finishing 7th, would have been equal (if not greater) with a player like Anelka coming in to play the vast majority of games - with the other £9m or so being used to strengthen other desperate areas of the squad.

 

Like everything it's open to debate, and I agree with some of your points, I can't agree with this particular comment though.

[tmonkey]

Example: Sir Bobby wanting Miguel, Shephard wanting Carr. Bids made for Miguel are below valutaion and rejected, bids made for Carr accepted, Sir Bobby agrees that its better to have Carr than noone, Shephard's statement of "I don't interfere with transfers and it is ludicrous to suggest that I bring in the players or make signings without the manager being involved" holds.

 

unbelievable.

 

I will leave macbeth - and maybe his monkey - to explain that Carr cost a lot less money and maybe he felt at that time he needed to watch the books. I wait for you to post in future criticising the club for overspending. As classic a case of "damned if they do damned if they don't" as it would be possible to find.

 

And for the record, I would have liked Miguel, I think he is one of the best right backs going.

 

No money for Miguel, yet we had 25mill to spare to sign Rooney that same summer?

 

Care to explain that, bearing in mind that Sir Bobby wanted us to buy Miguel for 5/6mill before Euro 2004 - which Shephard refused - and the 25mill Rooney bid was made after Euro 2004?

 

Sir Bobby wanted Miguel at a time when Shephard had a huge amount of cash tucked away, yet Shephard denied Sir Bobby those funds because he had other plans for that money, ie a mammoth bid for Rooney later on (and eventually, Owen when Souness wanted Anelka).

 

did Bobby Robson also want Rooney ? I would be staggered if he didn't.

 

I will allow macbeth and his monkey - again - to explain the importance of financial restraint to you, and while following their policy made Carr the player we got and not Miguel. They should be pleased that we did this.

 

I'm not even going to comment on preferring Anelka to Owen, its nothing other than mind blowing stupidity.

 

Scroll up a bit and see my post again, I edited it straight away to make it clearer - once you do, youll realise youve entirely missed the point of it with regards to your first question.

 

As for asking me again, its been answered in that post - we werent in a tight financial situation, there was tons of money to spend, the difference is that Robson wanted to spend it on several good players, whilst Shephard wanted to sign several budget players and splash the cash on one big summer signing. Whether he was correct to do so or not (hindsight shows he was badly mistaken) is irrelevant - its all about Shephard refusing to back his managers with regards to who they want, and forcing their hand by holding back funds and eliminating those preferred players, and eventually/submissively getting approval for whoever it is that he (Shephard) wants.

 

how do you know ? Do you have proof ? He is saying today he doesn't and hasn't.

 

I would say, possibly, that Shepherd, as with most chairman, wouldn't have heard of some of the foreigners we have bought, which blows away your opinion completely.

 

Is that meant to be a reply? Asking completely ambigious questions that make little sense? Cant deal with the issued raised, so now youre asking for proof?

 

Anyway, ill answer yet another pathetic attempt to avoid actually discussing a serious negative issue with Shephard.

 

How do I know? Do I have proof? Because we pulled out of the Miguel deal because of the 5/6mill price tag, and we then made a 22-25 mill bid for Rooney a few months later.

 

How else do I know? Sir Bobby wouldnt have wanted Miguel and whoever else it is he wanted (Beattie?) if he knew before Euro 2004 that wed later be bidding 20+ mill on Rooney. Makes no sense.

 

How else? Because Sir Bobby either did not know about the Rooney bid until it was made, or (as someone said on here) was merely asked if he would like Rooney. That wouldnt have been until after Euro 2004. So all that time, there was money sitting in Freddy's coffers, and he was refusing to spend money on who the manager wanted.

 

And hes not saying "he doesnt" piss about with low bids when the manager wants a player he doesnt. Hes saying he doesnt sign players without input from managers - completely different topic altogether, and its not what is being argued against Shephard. In case youve forgotten, its another straw-man arguement - build a straw man up that you can knock down and pretend it represents the opposition.

 

I will repeat myself here. What is being argued is that Shephard firstly refuses to spend the required amount on players who his manager wants, but then spends big on players who he wants after his managers' targets have been rejected.

 

Stick with the points being discussed.

 

the points are in the initial thread. He says the manager has chosen his own players.

 

Thats it. Thats your "answer" to the points ive made? "He says the manager has chosen his own players". Thats all you could come up with.

 

 

He doesnt even say that. He says:

 

"I don't interfere with transfers and it is ludicrous to suggest that I bring in the players or make signings without the manager being involved" and "There is no way I have ever said to a manager 'There is Mr X - you have got him whether you like him or not'.

 

which is completely different to "I let my managers choose who we sign".

 

So, after straw men and red herrings, you now resort to lying in your pro-Freddy quest.

 

Pathetic.

 

Cant you simply accept defeat, or just say "ok, this is certainly a negative aspect of Freddy, I agree" instead of putting your fingers in your ears, shutting your eyes, crouching in the corner and rocking back and forth whilst saying "Freddy is the best chairman ever, Freddy is the best chairman ever"?

 

Do you or do you not want the club to buy big money players or not ? If you do, don't complain when they do, and if you don't, don't complain when they don't...and also if you don't, then true mediocrity awaits, for those who think the last decade has been mediocre.

 

So lets get this straight - after refusing to acknowledge Freddy's serious fault here, youre now saying that its OK for Freddy to undermine his managers in the transfer market as long as we sign big names?

 

:rolllrg:

[Mick]

 

A quality signing.

 

Were Gazza, Waddle and Beardsley trophy signings by Spurs and Liverpool ?

 

As you are against signing big money players, you should be happy we bought Carr instead of Miguel. So I hope in future you will praise the board for not making big money "trophy" signings, as you call them.

 

Why don't you answer questions ie the league positions that have been posted, and stick to the points discussed

 

Where have I said I'm against signing big money signings?  I'm only against doubling the price we pay for an injury prone striker when the money could have been spent in a way that would have done more for the team.  Liverpool bid £8 million so we should have gone in at £9 million, not £16 or £17 million.  If we have to pay record fee's for people because they will improve the side and we'll get value for money then it's the right thing to do.

 

The question about league position isn't in this thread so stop side tracking to kill the thread that we're in.

[Mick]

 

I didn't think you would.

 

Are you now going to say that the 30+ years of league positions are made up 

 

If you didn't think I would then why ask?

 

The 30+ years are not made up, they weren't under one chairman either so are not relevant to the thread which they were in.

 

If the league position had mentioned who was chairman then it would have been more relevant, it's like me listing all of the trophies we've won and saying that is proves Shepherd is shit, I wouldn't do that because it's a distortion of the facts, just like the 30+ years is a distortion of the facts when trying to prove Shepherd is good.

 

Give your head a shake.

[Mick]

NE5, you really look stupid once again, you'll defend Shepherd to the bitter end regardless of what he does, you're a one off, even your biggest supporter on here seems to have a boundry when supporting Shepherd, you don't.

 

You've dug yourself a massive hole with the way you've defended Shepherd, I don't know how you can get out of this position you've backed yourself into but it will probably be funny watching it.