***The Quote-tastic thread***

[Ally]

Err no, it's fact actually.

 

And I think O'Neill is over-rated actually, just pointing out that based on a CV Souness was a reasonable appointment, although nowhere near as good as Dalglish for example, who had a track record far better than the likes of Mourinho. For example.

 

Aye I agree tbh.

 

Souness won the League Cup, FA Cup, 2 Turkish Cups, 4 Scottish League Cups and 4 Scottish League titles.

 

O'Neill won 2 League Cups, 3 SPLs, 3 Scottish Cups and 2 Scottish League Cups.

 

I actually supported Souness' appointment at the time, thought he'd do well.

[Baggio]

And if you can't see the connection between money spent and expectations then why don't you ring Abramovich up and ask him if he'll be happy with being 5th best over the next decade. In fact, ask him if he'd settle for being 2nd best. I'm sure he'd consider that failure.

 

Aye mate, and who will be responsible for that failure should it happen? Abramovich for backing Mourinho or Mourinho for not getting it right? Or is it just one of those things where there are so few trophies and no matter what happens you always need a bit of luck?

 

Abramovich wouldn't be to blame whatever happened, Peter Kenyon would.

 

 

 

Oh right.

 

He's the one who appointed Maurinho and runs the day to day sie of the football club, Abramovich just own's the club.

 

It would be similar to blaming SJH for the mess we're in now because he's the major shareholder.

 

Bollocks.

 

Mourinho was appointed by Abramovich.

 

Abramovich knows nothing about football, he'll even admit that himself.

 

He employed Kenyon to run the club and he picked Mourinho.

 

What about Shevchenko?

 

Kenyon is clearly left to do the dirty work at the club and the boring stuff. Abramovich gets left with the good stuff like identifying managers and then suggesting(?) players to sign. If Abramovich had as little say as you imply, why did he even buy the club? To sit and do nothing whilst someone else does it all but blow loads of cash? I doubt it.

 

Arnasen (sp?) runs the football side of it now, Kenyon the business side.

 

Arnesen picks the targets with Maurinho, similar to how Comolli picks them with Jol at Spurs, Shevchenko is there because he's a personal friend of Abramovich, a one off signing because of their friendship.

 

Chelsea aim to become the biggest club in the World in the future, there spending on players was just to get them up and running, it won't last forever.

 

And what does Abramovich get out of the deal, if he doesn't have a say on anything at the club?

 

He gets to own the biggest football club in the World if the plan that they've made comes off, I imagine they'll be worth a fair bit more than what he's invested already, Chelsea is an investment to him although he does come across as a fan of the club now.

[Dave]

Don't forget that running a foreign football club could possibly be a cracking way to launder money.

[Howaythelads]

And if you can't see the connection between money spent and expectations then why don't you ring Abramovich up and ask him if he'll be happy with being 5th best over the next decade. In fact, ask him if he'd settle for being 2nd best. I'm sure he'd consider that failure.

 

Aye mate, and who will be responsible for that failure should it happen? Abramovich for backing Mourinho or Mourinho for not getting it right? Or is it just one of those things where there are so few trophies and no matter what happens you always need a bit of luck?

 

Abramovich wouldn't be to blame whatever happened, Peter Kenyon would.

 

 

 

Oh right.

 

He's the one who appointed Maurinho and runs the day to day sie of the football club, Abramovich just own's the club.

 

It would be similar to blaming SJH for the mess we're in now because he's the major shareholder.

 

Abramovich calls the shots, mate. You can pin whatever label you like on Kenyon, on the basis of what I'm reading the buck stops with the top man and the top man is Abramovich.

 

I don't agree, I don't think there is anyway of proving it so we'll have agree to disagree on this one.

 

Ok. That's fine with me, mate. 

[Howaythelads]

And if you can't see the connection between money spent and expectations then why don't you ring Abramovich up and ask him if he'll be happy with being 5th best over the next decade. In fact, ask him if he'd settle for being 2nd best. I'm sure he'd consider that failure.

 

Aye mate, and who will be responsible for that failure should it happen? Abramovich for backing Mourinho or Mourinho for not getting it right? Or is it just one of those things where there are so few trophies and no matter what happens you always need a bit of luck?

 

Mourinho has already won a trophy. If he had appointed Mourinho and he didn't win anything before f***ing up, it'd be Abramovich's fault.

 

Or if Abramovich had  appointed a clearly shite manager who everyone in football knew was the wrong appointment then it would be his fault also.

 

The track record of Souness upto his appointment with Newcastle is comparable to that of Martin O'Neill.

 

Yes, to the clinically insane.

 

Err no, it's fact actually.

 

And I think O'Neill is over-rated actually, just pointing out that based on a CV Souness was a reasonable appointment, although nowhere near as good as Dalglish for example, who had a track record far better than the likes of Mourinho. For example.

 

How many clubs did O'Neill take backwards/get the sack from?

 

Also, didn't SJH appoint Dalglish?

 

Good point about O'Neill and I won't argue, because even though I think he's over-rated I do think Souness is shit and O'Neill is better. However, the fact is O'Neills actual CV is no better than that of Souness. Another fact is that it's not easy to get the right man. It's also a fact that a man who is the right man at one club may not be the right man at another club, but track record is the usual critieria used despite this.

 

Souness is the worst manager of Newcastle in my lifetime, no doubt about that at all. He was appointed by the current Board and I hate that as much as anybody else, however wankers who pin this "Fred lover" tag on me for refusing to accept the Board is crap are so far wrong it's just unbelievable. I'm more pissed off than most I can assure you. I see it as a terrible decision but I also see it as no reason to suppose that overall the Board has been shite for years and is shite right now on the basis of this mistake.

 

Mate, I'm not sure what your point is by your second statement. I don't know who the actual person was who appoinited Dalglish but as far as I know Boards appoint and sack managers unless the club has an outright owner.

[Cajun]

And if you can't see the connection between money spent and expectations then why don't you ring Abramovich up and ask him if he'll be happy with being 5th best over the next decade. In fact, ask him if he'd settle for being 2nd best. I'm sure he'd consider that failure.

 

Aye mate, and who will be responsible for that failure should it happen? Abramovich for backing Mourinho or Mourinho for not getting it right? Or is it just one of those things where there are so few trophies and no matter what happens you always need a bit of luck?

 

Mourinho has already won a trophy. If he had appointed Mourinho and he didn't win anything before f***ing up, it'd be Abramovich's fault.

 

Or if Abramovich had  appointed a clearly shite manager who everyone in football knew was the wrong appointment then it would be his fault also.

 

The track record of Souness upto his appointment with Newcastle is comparable to that of Martin O'Neill.

 

Yes, to the clinically insane.

 

Err no, it's fact actually.

 

And I think O'Neill is over-rated actually, just pointing out that based on a CV Souness was a reasonable appointment, although nowhere near as good as Dalglish for example, who had a track record far better than the likes of Mourinho. For example.

 

How many clubs did O'Neill take backwards/get the sack from?

 

Also, didn't SJH appoint Dalglish?

 

Good point about O'Neill and I won't argue, because even though I think he's over-rated I do think Souness is shit and O'Neill is better. However, the fact is O'Neills actual CV is no better than that of Souness. Another fact is that it's not easy to get the right man. It's also a fact that a man who is the right man at one club may not be the right man at another club, but track record is the usual critieria used despite this.

 

Souness is the worst manager of Newcastle in my lifetime, no doubt about that at all. He was appointed by the current Board and I hate that as much as anybody else, however wankers who pin this "Fred lover" tag on me for refusing to accept the Board is crap are so far wrong it's just unbelievable. I'm more pissed off than most I can assure you. I see it as a terrible decision but I also see it as no reason to suppose that overall the Board has been shite for years and is shite right now.

 

Mate, I'm not sure what your point is by you second statement. I don't know who the actual person was who appoinited Dalglish but as far as I know Boards appoint and sack managers unless the club has an outright owner.

 

Good post.

[brummie]

Souness won the League Cup, FA Cup, 2 Turkish Cups, 4 Scottish League Cups and 4 Scottish League titles.

 

O'Neill won 2 League Cups, 3 SPLs, 3 Scottish Cups and 2 Scottish League Cups.

 

I actually supported Souness' appointment at the time, thought he'd do well.

 

Fair point re the statistics but they mask the fact that Souness was also largely responsible for destroying the "boot room" culture at Liverpool, and they have now not won the league in 16 years.

 

Also, Souness achieved what he did in Scotland by having a huge amount of money to spend. MON did not, and he turned around the Rangers dominance. Look at who is the dominant force in Scottish football now, despite having Gordon Strachan as manager.

[Cajun]

Souness won the League Cup, FA Cup, 2 Turkish Cups, 4 Scottish League Cups and 4 Scottish League titles.

 

O'Neill won 2 League Cups, 3 SPLs, 3 Scottish Cups and 2 Scottish League Cups.

 

I actually supported Souness' appointment at the time, thought he'd do well.

 

Fair point re the statistics but they mask the fact that Souness was also largely responsible for destroying the "boot room" culture at Liverpool, and they have now not won the league in 16 years.

 

Also, Souness achieved what he did in Scotland by having a huge amount of money to spend. MON did not, and he turned around the Rangers dominance. Look at who is the dominant force in Scottish football now, despite having Gordon Strachan as manager.

 

Good point, the biggest point though at the end of the day regarding Souness was that he was strongly rumoured to get the sack when we approached Blackburn!

[sempuki]

According to another board the talk at St James' right now is that we've bid 5m for Upson and 8m for Curtis Davies!

[Dave]

According to another board the talk at St James' right now is that we've bid 5m for Upson and 8m for Curtis Davies!

 

 

It wasn't 606 was it?

[Mick]

The Souness record after Rangers.

 

Souness took over Liverpool who were by far the best team in England and had been for years, his four years were the most barren they'd had since Shankley took over, he won one FA Cup.  He gave them the worst league position they'd had for 30 years.

 

He went to Turkey and as far as I'm aware, he won one Turkish Cup and one Turkish Super Cup, probably like our FA and League Cups.  Galatasaray had won the league both sides of Souness, they won it in 94 and 97, Souness was at the club between 95 & 96, to be fair to him they do seem to have a different manager every year or two.

 

Next stop for Souness was Southampton where he resigned because he fell out with his chairman, no idea why.  While at Southampton he brought some great players to our country, who would forget Ali Dia?

 

Next Turin, he was sacked after 4 or 5 months.

 

Benfica, 2 years and the sack, won nothing and bought some right shite for the club.

 

Blackburn came next, he did get them promoted, won a League Cup and into Europe but left with them sitting below us in the league and looking certainties to go down.  He fell out with players and the recovery they made once he'd gone was proof of exactly what effect Souness was having on his team.

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

£8m for Curstis Davies

[Howaythelads]

Souness won the League Cup, FA Cup, 2 Turkish Cups, 4 Scottish League Cups and 4 Scottish League titles.

 

O'Neill won 2 League Cups, 3 SPLs, 3 Scottish Cups and 2 Scottish League Cups.

 

I actually supported Souness' appointment at the time, thought he'd do well.

 

Fair point re the statistics but they mask the fact that Souness was also largely responsible for destroying the "boot room" culture at Liverpool, and they have now not won the league in 16 years.

 

Also, Souness achieved what he did in Scotland by having a huge amount of money to spend. MON did not, and he turned around the Rangers dominance. Look at who is the dominant force in Scottish football now, despite having Gordon Strachan as manager.

 

Good point, the biggest point though at the end of the day regarding Souness was that he was strongly rumoured to get the sack when we approached Blackburn!

 

You're clutching at straws, Jon.

 

FFS learn how to concede a point. It's not a big deal and you're not conceding the argument.

 

I hate him and would like even the chance to kick his head in, but Souness had a sound track record and a better one than the much praised O'Neill.

[1878]

Please take Beattie. Please.

 

I'd drive him up there myself.

[brummie]

Souness won the League Cup, FA Cup, 2 Turkish Cups, 4 Scottish League Cups and 4 Scottish League titles.

 

O'Neill won 2 League Cups, 3 SPLs, 3 Scottish Cups and 2 Scottish League Cups.

 

I actually supported Souness' appointment at the time, thought he'd do well.

 

Fair point re the statistics but they mask the fact that Souness was also largely responsible for destroying the "boot room" culture at Liverpool, and they have now not won the league in 16 years.

 

Also, Souness achieved what he did in Scotland by having a huge amount of money to spend. MON did not, and he turned around the Rangers dominance. Look at who is the dominant force in Scottish football now, despite having Gordon Strachan as manager.

 

Good point, the biggest point though at the end of the day regarding Souness was that he was strongly rumoured to get the sack when we approached Blackburn!

 

You're clutching at straws, Jon.

 

FFS learn how to concede a point. It's not a big deal and you're not conceding the argument.

 

I hate him and would like even the chance to kick his head in, but Souness had a sound track record and a better one than the much praised O'Neill.

 

When you appointed Souness, a lot of neutrals were, frankly, staggered. He was already one of those managers who caused manager-less clubs to shudder in fear when his name was linked with them.

 

That says more than the above mentioned track records, which tell a different story if you look into them, in any case.

[Guest king harry]

Souness is to managment what myra hindley is to babysitting,he has took every club he has managed backwards. Apart from rangers, and i could probaly win the league up there.

[Guest Alan Shearer 9]

Are we still on about the fucking board?

[Cajun]

Souness won the League Cup, FA Cup, 2 Turkish Cups, 4 Scottish League Cups and 4 Scottish League titles.

 

O'Neill won 2 League Cups, 3 SPLs, 3 Scottish Cups and 2 Scottish League Cups.

 

I actually supported Souness' appointment at the time, thought he'd do well.

 

Fair point re the statistics but they mask the fact that Souness was also largely responsible for destroying the "boot room" culture at Liverpool, and they have now not won the league in 16 years.

 

Also, Souness achieved what he did in Scotland by having a huge amount of money to spend. MON did not, and he turned around the Rangers dominance. Look at who is the dominant force in Scottish football now, despite having Gordon Strachan as manager.

 

Good point, the biggest point though at the end of the day regarding Souness was that he was strongly rumoured to get the sack when we approached Blackburn!

 

You're clutching at straws, Jon.

 

FFS learn how to concede a point. It's not a big deal and you're not conceding the argument.

 

I hate him and would like even the chance to kick his head in, but Souness had a sound track record and a better one than the much praised O'Neill.

 

When you appointed Souness, a lot of neutrals were, frankly, staggered. He was already one of those managers who caused manager-less clubs to shudder in fear when his name was linked with them.

 

That says more than the above mentioned track records, which tell a different story if you look into them, in any case.

 

Fact! FFS I wont "concede a point" as im not the one chatting shite!

[NE5]

of course I would like to reach the FA Cup Final again  :roll:

 

Is it difficult for you to understand that rules are rules, and we qualified for europe according to the rules, and not a "back door" ?

 

As you object to qualifying for europe through the "back door" you must have loved all those years when we were nowhere near qualifying, when we had a board the same as the one we have now  :lol:

 

at you.

 

you can't answer again can't you  :lol:

 

I didn't think the question was worth answering but you being you, I suppose I'll have to.

 

The FA Cup doesn't guarantee European football unless you win it, we haven't won it, we've only qualified through the FA Cup because the winners qualified through the league, hence, back door.

 

no, you're wrong. The rules stated that the FA Cup Finalists enter the UEFA Cup if the winners qualify for the Champions League and elect to play in the Champions League rather than the UEFA Cup, or rather the FA nominated the FA Cup finalists in the event of that happening. We qualified for the Fairs Cup in 1968, 69 and 70 through finishing 10th, 9th and 7th respectively, through the one city one club rule. Note the word "rule". In summary, we qualified for europe 4 times between the 1950's and 1992, only once finishing in the top 5. We have qualified for europe since 1992 9 times, 6 times through finishing in the top 5, twice as FA Cup finalists, and once through the intertoto. And you think there is no difference between the board ....  :lol:

 

Fantastically funny, and could only be the opinion - [but not fact] of someone who didn't in fact witness the pre-1992 years.

 

 

[NE5]

What do you think of Arsenal winning stuff despite spending less?

probably the same as all the clubs we have overtaken and qualified more for europe than, since 1992, think of us

 

That they've done it by employing a good managerial and youth set up, instead of just throwing money at the problem and hoping for the best?

 

I doubt many of the clubs we have overtaken and qualified more for europe than, since 1992, think that of us.

 

Wenger is a genius and an inspired appointment, like Keegan was for us. What about the other 90 teams - how many of those have done better than us by appointing a good managerial and youth setup ?

 

 

[Baggio]

What do you think of Arsenal winning stuff despite spending less?

probably the same as all the clubs we have overtaken and qualified more for europe than, since 1992, think of us

 

That they've done it by employing a good managerial and youth set up, instead of just throwing money at the problem and hoping for the best?

 

I doubt many of the clubs we have overtaken and qualified more for europe than, since 1992, think that of us.

 

Wenger is a genius and an inspired appointment, like Keegan was for us. What about the other 90 teams - how many of those have done better than us by appointing a good managerial and youth setup ?

 

 

 

Not many other teams want to go £87 million in debt for regular European football and zero trophies.

[NE5]

And if you can't see the connection between money spent and expectations then why don't you ring Abramovich up and ask him if he'll be happy with being 5th best over the next decade. In fact, ask him if he'd settle for being 2nd best. I'm sure he'd consider that failure.

 

Aye mate, and who will be responsible for that failure should it happen? Abramovich for backing Mourinho or Mourinho for not getting it right? Or is it just one of those things where there are so few trophies and no matter what happens you always need a bit of luck?

 

Mourinho has already won a trophy. If he had appointed Mourinho and he didn't win anything before f***ing up, it'd be Abramovich's fault.

 

Boring as F***, tbh. I expected better from you, even though we don't agree I know you're not stupid.

 

Is that your reply?

 

Abramovich has appointed a manager that has won him trophies. This confirms that Roman has appointed a manager capable of winning him trophies therefore he has done his job correctly. If it goes pearshaped from there it's Abramovich's job to either keep faith with him or replace him with a manager to take the club forward. If Abramovich decided to keep faith and it didn't work out, then it would be his fault. If he decided enough was enough and appointed Souness and Chelsea won nothing and finished 14th, it'd surely be his own fault?

 

On what evidence did he make that appointment?

 

He probably assessed his football club and assessed Mourinho's personality and character and decided that the two were compatible. Competence!

 

Are we going to compare this to appointing Dalgleish, the defensive style manager, to manage the most attacking team in English football?

 

 

What do you know about the Liverpool team managed by Dalglish? Or are you basing everything on his time at Blackburn?

 

I see him as a very experienced and successful manager of 2 football clubs, success achieved under entirely different circumstances that indicated AT THE TIME that he could be a very good choice for us. Apart from the liar, I don't know anybody who thought this was a crap appointment at the time.

 

 

 

So your defence of Shepherd is that he once made an appointment that people thought would be good but wasn't?

 

So you don't think a manager who had won premiership titles with 2 clubs, 2 FA Cups and 3 manager of the year awards is qualified enough  :lol:

[NE5]

And if you can't see the connection between money spent and expectations then why don't you ring Abramovich up and ask him if he'll be happy with being 5th best over the next decade. In fact, ask him if he'd settle for being 2nd best. I'm sure he'd consider that failure.

 

Aye mate, and who will be responsible for that failure should it happen? Abramovich for backing Mourinho or Mourinho for not getting it right? Or is it just one of those things where there are so few trophies and no matter what happens you always need a bit of luck?

 

Abramovich wouldn't be to blame whatever happened, Peter Kenyon would.

 

 

 

Oh right.

 

He's the one who appointed Maurinho and runs the day to day sie of the football club, Abramovich just own's the club.

 

It would be similar to blaming SJH for the mess we're in now because he's the major shareholder.

 

Bollocks.

 

Mourinho was appointed by Abramovich.

 

Abramovich knows nothing about football, he'll even admit that himself.

 

He employed Kenyon to run the club and he picked Mourinho.

 

What about Shevchenko?

 

Kenyon is clearly left to do the dirty work at the club and the boring stuff. Abramovich gets left with the good stuff like identifying managers and then suggesting(?) players to sign. If Abramovich had as little say as you imply, why did he even buy the club? To sit and do nothing whilst someone else does it all but blow loads of cash? I doubt it.

 

Arnasen (sp?) runs the football side of it now, Kenyon the business side.

 

Arnesen picks the targets with Maurinho, similar to how Comolli picks them with Jol at Spurs, Shevchenko is there because he's a personal friend of Abramovich, a one off signing because of their friendship.

 

Chelsea aim to become the biggest club in the World in the future, there spending on players was just to get them up and running, it won't last forever.

 

And what does Abramovich get out of the deal, if he doesn't have a say on anything at the club?

 

He gets to own the biggest football club in the World if the plan that they've made comes off, I imagine they'll be worth a fair bit more than what he's invested already, Chelsea is an investment to him although he does come across as a fan of the club now.

 

he will NEVER get his money back

 

 

[Baggio]

And if you can't see the connection between money spent and expectations then why don't you ring Abramovich up and ask him if he'll be happy with being 5th best over the next decade. In fact, ask him if he'd settle for being 2nd best. I'm sure he'd consider that failure.

 

Aye mate, and who will be responsible for that failure should it happen? Abramovich for backing Mourinho or Mourinho for not getting it right? Or is it just one of those things where there are so few trophies and no matter what happens you always need a bit of luck?

 

Abramovich wouldn't be to blame whatever happened, Peter Kenyon would.

 

 

 

Oh right.

 

He's the one who appointed Maurinho and runs the day to day sie of the football club, Abramovich just own's the club.

 

It would be similar to blaming SJH for the mess we're in now because he's the major shareholder.

 

Bollocks.

 

Mourinho was appointed by Abramovich.

 

Abramovich knows nothing about football, he'll even admit that himself.

 

He employed Kenyon to run the club and he picked Mourinho.

 

What about Shevchenko?

 

Kenyon is clearly left to do the dirty work at the club and the boring stuff. Abramovich gets left with the good stuff like identifying managers and then suggesting(?) players to sign. If Abramovich had as little say as you imply, why did he even buy the club? To sit and do nothing whilst someone else does it all but blow loads of cash? I doubt it.

 

Arnasen (sp?) runs the football side of it now, Kenyon the business side.

 

Arnesen picks the targets with Maurinho, similar to how Comolli picks them with Jol at Spurs, Shevchenko is there because he's a personal friend of Abramovich, a one off signing because of their friendship.

 

Chelsea aim to become the biggest club in the World in the future, there spending on players was just to get them up and running, it won't last forever.

 

And what does Abramovich get out of the deal, if he doesn't have a say on anything at the club?

 

He gets to own the biggest football club in the World if the plan that they've made comes off, I imagine they'll be worth a fair bit more than what he's invested already, Chelsea is an investment to him although he does come across as a fan of the club now.

 

he will NEVER get his money back

 

 

 

How can you be so sure?

[Cajun]

Ok any chance of getting this back on topic or are we here for the long haul? 

 

Anyone with the 1st January is ooot!