***The Quote-tastic thread***

[Howaythelads]

So explain the criteria for appointing a manager that will definitely pay off.

 

 

if you're a capable premiership level chairman you're expected to make appointments based on character and attempt to judge their compatibility with a club. It's like on the pitch, look at Real Madrid in recent years. You can have the best footballers in the world, but if you stick them on the pitch it means nothing unless they gel. The same applies when appointing a manager to a football club. A good manager builds a team that gels on the pitch. A good chairman appoints a manager that gels with the club and the club's character.

 

Why are you asking me what criteria should be used? As I've already pointed out....

Shepherd is paid millions to make these decisions so should therefore be better than yourself and I when it comes to identifying appropriate managers.

 

I'm NOT a man paid millions to make these decisions so therefore Shepherd should know what criteria should be used to appoint a successful manager. Afterall, the Liverpool board can do it, and Shepherd is higher paid so he should know what criteria to use.

 

 

Why should I be able to identify the criteria? I'm not paid millions? Why should Shepherd be able to identify the criteria? Because he's paid millions to do so. How many times must I say this before it sinks in.

 

You can also explain why it is guaranteed a replacement for the current Board will appoint this manager who will pay off.

 

I'll explain that when you explain where I've indicated such. Boring. So we shouldn't want a new board in case they're also incompetent at managerial appointments? Maybe we shouldn't have hated Souness "because the new manager might be shit too"?

 

While you're at it you can also explain what happens if any new Board does appoint the right manager but that manager isn't backed by the new Board to build his team.

 

Unlikely when you consider the figures that would have to be invested for a takeover, if the new board didn't back their managers it would be a disasterous business decision as their investment would fail, they'd lose millions and millions. Would somebody clever enough to be able to raise £100m+ to buy the club be stupid enough not to invest after a takeover? I doubt it.

 

You're being critical of managerial appointments by the Board by applying hindsight. We could all do that. I want you to tell everybody the right way to do it, a way to select a manager that will guarantee success. By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

I'm still waiting for you to tell me how it's guaranteed a replacement Board will be any better at selecting a manager than the current Board has been. Perhaps that will become clear when you state what the criteria is. The stuff you've posted so far seems to be a long-winded way of saying, "select the right man".  bluelaugh.gif

 

Good example there using Liverpool, by the way. This was a Board that also appointed Souness, a Board that then put in place a system of 2 people acting as joint managers. Great work that. Can't imagine what the reaction would be on here if our Board appointed a double act as "manager".

[Guest thompers]

So explain the criteria for appointing a manager that will definitely pay off.

 

 

if you're a capable premiership level chairman you're expected to make appointments based on character and attempt to judge their compatibility with a club. It's like on the pitch, look at Real Madrid in recent years. You can have the best footballers in the world, but if you stick them on the pitch it means nothing unless they gel. The same applies when appointing a manager to a football club. A good manager builds a team that gels on the pitch. A good chairman appoints a manager that gels with the club and the club's character.

 

Why are you asking me what criteria should be used? As I've already pointed out....

Shepherd is paid millions to make these decisions so should therefore be better than yourself and I when it comes to identifying appropriate managers.

 

I'm NOT a man paid millions to make these decisions so therefore Shepherd should know what criteria should be used to appoint a successful manager. Afterall, the Liverpool board can do it, and Shepherd is higher paid so he should know what criteria to use.

 

 

Why should I be able to identify the criteria? I'm not paid millions? Why should Shepherd be able to identify the criteria? Because he's paid millions to do so. How many times must I say this before it sinks in.

 

You can also explain why it is guaranteed a replacement for the current Board will appoint this manager who will pay off.

 

I'll explain that when you explain where I've indicated such. Boring. So we shouldn't want a new board in case they're also incompetent at managerial appointments? Maybe we shouldn't have hated Souness "because the new manager might be shit too"?

 

While you're at it you can also explain what happens if any new Board does appoint the right manager but that manager isn't backed by the new Board to build his team.

 

Unlikely when you consider the figures that would have to be invested for a takeover, if the new board didn't back their managers it would be a disasterous business decision as their investment would fail, they'd lose millions and millions. Would somebody clever enough to be able to raise £100m+ to buy the club be stupid enough not to invest after a takeover? I doubt it.

 

You're being critical of managerial appointments by the Board by applying hindsight. We could all do that. I want you to tell everybody the right way to do it, a way to select a manager that will guarantee success. By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

I'm still waiting for you to tell me how it's guaranteed a replacement Board will be any better at selecting a manager than the current Board has been. Perhaps that will become clear when you state what the criteria is. The stuff you've posted so far seems to be a long-winded way of saying, "select the right man".  bluelaugh.gif

 

Good example there using Liverpool, by the way. This was a Board that also appointed Souness, a Board that then put in place a system of 2 people acting as joint managers. Great work that. Can't imagine what the reaction would be on here if our Board appointed a double act as "manager".

 

f you're a capable premiership level chairman you're expected to make appointments based on character and attempt to judge their compatibility with a club. It's like on the pitch, look at Real Madrid in recent years. You can have the best footballers in the world, but if you stick them on the pitch it means nothing unless they gel. The same applies when appointing a manager to a football club. A good manager builds a team that gels on the pitch. A good chairman appoints a manager that gels with the club and the club's character.

 

f you're a capable premiership level chairman you're expected to make appointments based on character and attempt to judge their compatibility with a club. It's like on the pitch, look at Real Madrid in recent years. You can have the best footballers in the world, but if you stick them on the pitch it means nothing unless they gel. The same applies when appointing a manager to a football club. A good manager builds a team that gels on the pitch. A good chairman appoints a manager that gels with the club and the club's character.

 

f you're a capable premiership level chairman you're expected to make appointments based on character and attempt to judge their compatibility with a club. It's like on the pitch, look at Real Madrid in recent years. You can have the best footballers in the world, but if you stick them on the pitch it means nothing unless they gel. The same applies when appointing a manager to a football club. A good manager builds a team that gels on the pitch. A good chairman appoints a manager that gels with the club and the club's character.

 

 

f you're a capable premiership level chairman you're expected to make appointments based on character and attempt to judge their compatibility with a club. It's like on the pitch, look at Real Madrid in recent years. You can have the best footballers in the world, but if you stick them on the pitch it means nothing unless they gel. The same applies when appointing a manager to a football club. A good manager builds a team that gels on the pitch. A good chairman appoints a manager that gels with the club and the club's character.

 

f you're a capable premiership level chairman you're expected to make appointments based on character and attempt to judge their compatibility with a club. It's like on the pitch, look at Real Madrid in recent years. You can have the best footballers in the world, but if you stick them on the pitch it means nothing unless they gel. The same applies when appointing a manager to a football club. A good manager builds a team that gels on the pitch. A good chairman appoints a manager that gels with the club and the club's character.

f you're a capable premiership level chairman you're expected to make appointments based on character and attempt to judge their compatibility with a club. It's like on the pitch, look at Real Madrid in recent years. You can have the best footballers in the world, but if you stick them on the pitch it means nothing unless they gel. The same applies when appointing a manager to a football club. A good manager builds a team that gels on the pitch. A good chairman appoints a manager that gels with the club and the club's character.

 

f you're a capable premiership level chairman you're expected to make appointments based on character and attempt to judge their compatibility with a club. It's like on the pitch, look at Real Madrid in recent years. You can have the best footballers in the world, but if you stick them on the pitch it means nothing unless they gel. The same applies when appointing a manager to a football club. A good manager builds a team that gels on the pitch. A good chairman appoints a manager that gels with the club and the club's character.f you're a capable premiership level chairman you're expected to make appointments based on character and attempt to judge their compatibility with a club. It's like on the pitch, look at Real Madrid in recent years. You can have the best footballers in the world, but if you stick them on the pitch it means nothing unless they gel. The same applies when appointing a manager to a football club. A good manager builds a team that gels on the pitch. A good chairman appoints a manager that gels with the club and the club's character.f you're a capable premiership level chairman you're expected to make appointments based on character and attempt to judge their compatibility with a club. It's like on the pitch, look at Real Madrid in recent years. You can have the best footballers in the world, but if you stick them on the pitch it means nothing unless they gel. The same applies when appointing a manager to a football club. A good manager builds a team that gels on the pitch. A good chairman appoints a manager that gels with the club and the club's character.f you're a capable premiership level chairman you're expected to make appointments based on character and attempt to judge their compatibility with a club. It's like on the pitch, look at Real Madrid in recent years. You can have the best footballers in the world, but if you stick them on the pitch it means nothing unless they gel. The same applies when appointing a manager to a football club. A good manager builds a team that gels on the pitch. A good chairman appoints a manager that gels with the club and the club's character.f you're a capable premiership level chairman you're expected to make appointments based on character and attempt to judge their compatibility with a club. It's like on the pitch, look at Real Madrid in recent years. You can have the best footballers in the world, but if you stick them on the pitch it means nothing unless they gel. The same applies when appointing a manager to a football club. A good manager builds a team that gels on the pitch. A good chairman appoints a manager that gels with the club and the club's character.f you're a capable premiership level chairman you're expected to make appointments based on character and attempt to judge their compatibility with a club. It's like on the pitch, look at Real Madrid in recent years. You can have the best footballers in the world, but if you stick them on the pitch it means nothing unless they gel. The same applies when appointing a manager to a football club. A good manager builds a team that gels on the pitch. A good chairman appoints a manager that gels with the club and the club's character.f you're a capable premiership level chairman you're expected to make appointments based on character and attempt to judge their compatibility with a club. It's like on the pitch, look at Real Madrid in recent years. You can have the best footballers in the world, but if you stick them on the pitch it means nothing unless they gel. The same applies when appointing a manager to a football club. A good manager builds a team that gels on the pitch. A good chairman appoints a manager that gels with the club and the club's character.f you're a capable premiership level chairman you're expected to make appointments based on character and attempt to judge their compatibility with a club. It's like on the pitch, look at Real Madrid in recent years. You can have the best footballers in the world, but if you stick them on the pitch it means nothing unless they gel. The same applies when appointing a manager to a football club. A good manager builds a team that gels on the pitch. A good chairman appoints a manager that gels with the club and the club's character.

[Guest thompers]

CRITERIA = CHARACTER AND PERSONALITY AND NOT OMG THEY JUST WON DA LEAGUE AT BLACKBURN WIPPEEEEEE.

 

Is that ok? Have you read it now?

[Guest thompers]

How the fuck am I supposed to not be critical by applying hindsight for fucking crying out loud. It's due to us discussing the fucking past. Is time travel invented so I can go back to the fucking 90s, will you then be satisfied that I'm not applying hindsight.

[Howaythelads]

CRITERIA = CHARACTER AND PERSONALITY AND NOT OMG THEY JUST WON DA LEAGUE AT BLACKBURN WIPPEEEEEE.

 

Is that ok? Have you read it now?

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

[Guest thompers]

I'm still waiting for you to tell me how it's guaranteed a replacement Board will be any better at selecting a manager than the current Board has been

 

Will you please tell me how its guaranteed that a replacement for Scott Parker will be any better in midfield than Scott has been?

 

Answer, you can't, but it doesn't exempt him from critisism. What a fucking pathetic argument.

[Guest thompers]

CRITERIA = CHARACTER AND PERSONALITY AND NOT OMG THEY JUST WON DA LEAGUE AT BLACKBURN WIPPEEEEEE.

 

Is that ok? Have you read it now?

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

 

How isn't it an answer to the fucking question?

[Guest thompers]

I've wiped the floor with you both in this thread, to the point where NE5 couldn't even answer my post and I've resorted you to "I-look-thick-as-pigshit" answers too.

 

Unlucky lads, but...

 

:own:

[Howaythelads]

CRITERIA = CHARACTER AND PERSONALITY AND NOT OMG THEY JUST WON DA LEAGUE AT BLACKBURN WIPPEEEEEE.

 

Is that ok? Have you read it now?

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

 

How isn't it an answer to the f***ing question?

 

Calm down, ffs.

[Guest thompers]

CRITERIA = CHARACTER AND PERSONALITY AND NOT OMG THEY JUST WON DA LEAGUE AT BLACKBURN WIPPEEEEEE.

 

Is that ok? Have you read it now?

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

 

How isn't it an answer to the f***ing question?

 

Calm down, ffs.

 

Stop making a load of shit up then because you can't accept that you're wrong.

 

 

[Howaythelads]

CRITERIA = CHARACTER AND PERSONALITY AND NOT OMG THEY JUST WON DA LEAGUE AT BLACKBURN WIPPEEEEEE.

 

Is that ok? Have you read it now?

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

 

How isn't it an answer to the f***ing question?

 

Calm down, ffs.

 

Stop making a load of shit up then because you can't accept that you're wrong.

 

 

 

I'm not wrong.

 

Dalglish was a good appointment based on any normal selection criteria. So was Gullitt, so was Robson.

 

Even Souness had a winning track record. Plus, and as you're so big on character being an essential criteria, you should agree that appointing a known disciplinarian to get the players back under control was a good idea by the Board. You were aware that some of the players were generally known to be running amok and lacking in respect for the previous manager, don't you? So in the case of Souness they went for character and personality, just as you suggest.

[ChezGiven]

Thompers, using Real Madrid as a comparison is idiotic unless you are like Freddy and believe the hype about the size of our club. RM can attract the best managerial talent in the world, they dont need to take risks on selections. They sometimes have got it wrong too. Getting the right man for a mid-table prem club is a nigh on impossible task. Hence the argument, what would you do? Shepherd is paid a wacking amount to do the job but that does not mean that criteria for assessing performance should not take into account how difficult the task is.

 

Curbishley to West Ham was clearly the right decision for their board? Yes?

[Guest thompers]

CRITERIA = CHARACTER AND PERSONALITY AND NOT OMG THEY JUST WON DA LEAGUE AT BLACKBURN WIPPEEEEEE.

 

Is that ok? Have you read it now?

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

 

How isn't it an answer to the f***ing question?

 

Calm down, ffs.

 

Stop making a load of shit up then because you can't accept that you're wrong.

 

 

 

I'm not wrong.

 

Dalglish was a good appointment based on any normal selection criteria. So was Gullitt, so was Robson.

 

Even Souness had a winning track record. Plus, and as you're so big on character being an essential criteria, you should agree that appointing a known disciplinarian to get the players back under control was a good idea by the Board. You were aware that some of the players were generally known to be running amok and lacking in respect for the previous manager, don't you? So in the case of Souness they went for character and personality, just as you suggest.

 

They appointed a disciplinarian to get the players under control. He got the players under control. Therefore going for character and personality was a success. Perhaps they should try the same but for getting results instead.

 

Why did Man Utd want O Neill and when there were more successful managers by the "normal selection criteria" available?

[Howaythelads]

CRITERIA = CHARACTER AND PERSONALITY AND NOT OMG THEY JUST WON DA LEAGUE AT BLACKBURN WIPPEEEEEE.

 

Is that ok? Have you read it now?

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

 

How isn't it an answer to the f***ing question?

 

Calm down, ffs.

 

Stop making a load of shit up then because you can't accept that you're wrong.

 

 

 

I'm not wrong.

 

Dalglish was a good appointment based on any normal selection criteria. So was Gullitt, so was Robson.

 

Even Souness had a winning track record. Plus, and as you're so big on character being an essential criteria, you should agree that appointing a known disciplinarian to get the players back under control was a good idea by the Board. You were aware that some of the players were generally known to be running amok and lacking in respect for the previous manager, don't you? So in the case of Souness they went for character and personality, just as you suggest.

 

They appointed a disciplinarian to get the players under control. He got the players under control. Therefore going for character and personality was a success. Perhaps they should try the same but for getting results instead.

 

Why did Man Utd want O Neill and when there were more successful managers by the "normal selection criteria" available?

 

In fact he didn't get the players under control. He booted out the players he couldn't manage.

 

I've no idea why Manure wanted O'Neill, but I imagine they think he's the right man for the job based on his track record, unless you think they think he's a funny character when he's pissed on the TV.

[Guest thompers]

Thompers, using Real Madrid as a comparison is idiotic unless you are like Freddy and believe the hype about the size of our club. RM can attract the best managerial talent in the world, they dont need to take risks on selections. They sometimes have got it wrong too. Getting the right man for a mid-table prem club is a nigh on impossible task. Hence the argument, what would you do? Shepherd is paid a wacking amount to do the job but that does not mean that criteria for assessing performance should not take into account how difficult the task is.

 

Curbishley to West Ham was clearly the right decision for their board? Yes?

 

Are you even being serious about real madrid? The only time I used them to compare was by pointing out how poorly they gel despite having such good players. I compared this to how a manager despite how good he is will not always gel with a football club. What is idiotic about using Real Madrid in that comparison?

 

Why would I care about whether or not Curbishly is the correct appointment?

 

Shepherd is paid a wacking amount to do the job but that does not mean that criteria for assessing performance should not take into account how difficult the task is.

 

So how can the lower-paid chairman at Liverpool appoint 2 trophy-winning ones in a row yet ours (despite wasting more money in the process) can't appoint one during his entire reign?

[Guest thompers]

CRITERIA = CHARACTER AND PERSONALITY AND NOT OMG THEY JUST WON DA LEAGUE AT BLACKBURN WIPPEEEEEE.

 

Is that ok? Have you read it now?

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

 

How isn't it an answer to the f***ing question?

 

Calm down, ffs.

 

Stop making a load of shit up then because you can't accept that you're wrong.

 

 

 

I'm not wrong.

 

Dalglish was a good appointment based on any normal selection criteria. So was Gullitt, so was Robson.

 

Even Souness had a winning track record. Plus, and as you're so big on character being an essential criteria, you should agree that appointing a known disciplinarian to get the players back under control was a good idea by the Board. You were aware that some of the players were generally known to be running amok and lacking in respect for the previous manager, don't you? So in the case of Souness they went for character and personality, just as you suggest.

 

They appointed a disciplinarian to get the players under control. He got the players under control. Therefore going for character and personality was a success. Perhaps they should try the same but for getting results instead.

 

Why did Man Utd want O Neill and when there were more successful managers by the "normal selection criteria" available?

 

In fact he didn't get the players under control. He booted out the players he couldn't manage.

 

I've no idea why Manure wanted O'Neill, but I imagine they think he's the right man for the job based on his track record, unless you think they think he's funny when he's pissed on the TV.

 

But there are better track records if using what you describe as "normal selection criteria"? So why not go for them?

 

Could it be perhaps that those with ability to run a football club realise that the correct and good appointments aren't necessarily the ones with the best records and that there is in fact other factors to be taken into account in a correct appointment? Maybe they actually researched instead of constantly trying to be crowd pleasers, which is the only reason Roeder was appointed.

[Howaythelads]

CRITERIA = CHARACTER AND PERSONALITY AND NOT OMG THEY JUST WON DA LEAGUE AT BLACKBURN WIPPEEEEEE.

 

Is that ok? Have you read it now?

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

 

How isn't it an answer to the f***ing question?

 

Calm down, ffs.

 

Stop making a load of shit up then because you can't accept that you're wrong.

 

 

 

I'm not wrong.

 

Dalglish was a good appointment based on any normal selection criteria. So was Gullitt, so was Robson.

 

Even Souness had a winning track record. Plus, and as you're so big on character being an essential criteria, you should agree that appointing a known disciplinarian to get the players back under control was a good idea by the Board. You were aware that some of the players were generally known to be running amok and lacking in respect for the previous manager, don't you? So in the case of Souness they went for character and personality, just as you suggest.

 

They appointed a disciplinarian to get the players under control. He got the players under control. Therefore going for character and personality was a success. Perhaps they should try the same but for getting results instead.

 

Why did Man Utd want O Neill and when there were more successful managers by the "normal selection criteria" available?

 

In fact he didn't get the players under control. He booted out the players he couldn't manage.

 

I've no idea why Manure wanted O'Neill, but I imagine they think he's the right man for the job based on his track record, unless you think they think he's funny when he's pissed on the TV.

 

But there are better track records if using what you describe as "normal selection criteria"? So why not go for them?

 

Could it be perhaps that those with ability to run a football club realise that the correct and good appointments aren't necessarily the ones with the best records and that there is in fact other factors to be taken into account in a correct appointment? Maybe they actually researched instead of constantly trying to be crowd pleasers, which is the only reason Roeder was appointed.

 

Appointing Roeder was not a crowd pleaser, I can't believe you wrote that, tbh. 

 

[Guest thompers]

CRITERIA = CHARACTER AND PERSONALITY AND NOT OMG THEY JUST WON DA LEAGUE AT BLACKBURN WIPPEEEEEE.

 

Is that ok? Have you read it now?

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

 

How isn't it an answer to the f***ing question?

 

Calm down, ffs.

 

Stop making a load of shit up then because you can't accept that you're wrong.

 

 

 

I'm not wrong.

 

Dalglish was a good appointment based on any normal selection criteria. So was Gullitt, so was Robson.

 

Even Souness had a winning track record. Plus, and as you're so big on character being an essential criteria, you should agree that appointing a known disciplinarian to get the players back under control was a good idea by the Board. You were aware that some of the players were generally known to be running amok and lacking in respect for the previous manager, don't you? So in the case of Souness they went for character and personality, just as you suggest.

 

They appointed a disciplinarian to get the players under control. He got the players under control. Therefore going for character and personality was a success. Perhaps they should try the same but for getting results instead.

 

Why did Man Utd want O Neill and when there were more successful managers by the "normal selection criteria" available?

 

In fact he didn't get the players under control. He booted out the players he couldn't manage.

 

I've no idea why Manure wanted O'Neill, but I imagine they think he's the right man for the job based on his track record, unless you think they think he's funny when he's pissed on the TV.

 

But there are better track records if using what you describe as "normal selection criteria"? So why not go for them?

 

Could it be perhaps that those with ability to run a football club realise that the correct and good appointments aren't necessarily the ones with the best records and that there is in fact other factors to be taken into account in a correct appointment? Maybe they actually researched instead of constantly trying to be crowd pleasers, which is the only reason Roeder was appointed.

 

Appointing Roeder was not a crowd pleaser, I can't believe you wrote that, tbh. 

 

 

So "Glenn was who the fans wanted" is just a little lie Freddy made up to defend the appointment was it, tbh?

[Howaythelads]

CRITERIA = CHARACTER AND PERSONALITY AND NOT OMG THEY JUST WON DA LEAGUE AT BLACKBURN WIPPEEEEEE.

 

Is that ok? Have you read it now?

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

 

How isn't it an answer to the f***ing question?

 

Calm down, ffs.

 

Stop making a load of shit up then because you can't accept that you're wrong.

 

 

 

I'm not wrong.

 

Dalglish was a good appointment based on any normal selection criteria. So was Gullitt, so was Robson.

 

Even Souness had a winning track record. Plus, and as you're so big on character being an essential criteria, you should agree that appointing a known disciplinarian to get the players back under control was a good idea by the Board. You were aware that some of the players were generally known to be running amok and lacking in respect for the previous manager, don't you? So in the case of Souness they went for character and personality, just as you suggest.

 

They appointed a disciplinarian to get the players under control. He got the players under control. Therefore going for character and personality was a success. Perhaps they should try the same but for getting results instead.

 

Why did Man Utd want O Neill and when there were more successful managers by the "normal selection criteria" available?

 

In fact he didn't get the players under control. He booted out the players he couldn't manage.

 

I've no idea why Manure wanted O'Neill, but I imagine they think he's the right man for the job based on his track record, unless you think they think he's funny when he's pissed on the TV.

 

But there are better track records if using what you describe as "normal selection criteria"? So why not go for them?

 

Could it be perhaps that those with ability to run a football club realise that the correct and good appointments aren't necessarily the ones with the best records and that there is in fact other factors to be taken into account in a correct appointment? Maybe they actually researched instead of constantly trying to be crowd pleasers, which is the only reason Roeder was appointed.

 

Appointing Roeder was not a crowd pleaser, I can't believe you wrote that, tbh. 

 

 

So "Glenn was who the fans wanted" is just a little lie Freddy made up to defend the appointment was it, tbh?

 

Could be. What do you think?

[Guest thompers]

CRITERIA = CHARACTER AND PERSONALITY AND NOT OMG THEY JUST WON DA LEAGUE AT BLACKBURN WIPPEEEEEE.

 

Is that ok? Have you read it now?

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

By the way, you don't have to link back to something you said earlier, I read it the first time but it isn't an answer to the question.

 

 

How isn't it an answer to the f***ing question?

 

Calm down, ffs.

 

Stop making a load of shit up then because you can't accept that you're wrong.

 

 

 

I'm not wrong.

 

Dalglish was a good appointment based on any normal selection criteria. So was Gullitt, so was Robson.

 

Even Souness had a winning track record. Plus, and as you're so big on character being an essential criteria, you should agree that appointing a known disciplinarian to get the players back under control was a good idea by the Board. You were aware that some of the players were generally known to be running amok and lacking in respect for the previous manager, don't you? So in the case of Souness they went for character and personality, just as you suggest.

 

They appointed a disciplinarian to get the players under control. He got the players under control. Therefore going for character and personality was a success. Perhaps they should try the same but for getting results instead.

 

Why did Man Utd want O Neill and when there were more successful managers by the "normal selection criteria" available?

 

In fact he didn't get the players under control. He booted out the players he couldn't manage.

 

I've no idea why Manure wanted O'Neill, but I imagine they think he's the right man for the job based on his track record, unless you think they think he's funny when he's pissed on the TV.

 

But there are better track records if using what you describe as "normal selection criteria"? So why not go for them?

 

Could it be perhaps that those with ability to run a football club realise that the correct and good appointments aren't necessarily the ones with the best records and that there is in fact other factors to be taken into account in a correct appointment? Maybe they actually researched instead of constantly trying to be crowd pleasers, which is the only reason Roeder was appointed.

 

Appointing Roeder was not a crowd pleaser, I can't believe you wrote that, tbh. 

 

 

So "Glenn was who the fans wanted" is just a little lie Freddy made up to defend the appointment was it, tbh?

 

Could be. What do you think?

 

I think it was a crowd pleaser in that big fat hollow head of his. An actual crowd pleaser, probably not.

[ChezGiven]

Thompers, using Real Madrid as a comparison is idiotic unless you are like Freddy and believe the hype about the size of our club. RM can attract the best managerial talent in the world, they dont need to take risks on selections. They sometimes have got it wrong too. Getting the right man for a mid-table prem club is a nigh on impossible task. Hence the argument, what would you do? Shepherd is paid a wacking amount to do the job but that does not mean that criteria for assessing performance should not take into account how difficult the task is.

 

Curbishley to West Ham was clearly the right decision for their board? Yes?

 

Are you even being serious about real madrid? The only time I used them to compare was by pointing out how poorly they gel despite having such good players. I compared this to how a manager despite how good he is will not always gel with a football club. What is idiotic about using Real Madrid in that comparison?

 

Why would I care about whether or not Curbishly is the correct appointment?

 

Shepherd is paid a wacking amount to do the job but that does not mean that criteria for assessing performance should not take into account how difficult the task is.

 

So how can the lower-paid chairman at Liverpool appoint 2 trophy-winning ones in a row yet ours (despite wasting more money in the process) can't appoint one during his entire reign?

 

No not serious about RM, just a bit difficult to discern what your point was by posting repeated points in the same post. Just wanted to flag that as a waste of fucking space and my time  bluebigrazz.gif

 

You should care about other clubs like Charlton if you are then going to try and back your point up with stuff about appointments by the Liverpool board tbh 

[Guest thompers]

Thompers, using Real Madrid as a comparison is idiotic unless you are like Freddy and believe the hype about the size of our club. RM can attract the best managerial talent in the world, they dont need to take risks on selections. They sometimes have got it wrong too. Getting the right man for a mid-table prem club is a nigh on impossible task. Hence the argument, what would you do? Shepherd is paid a wacking amount to do the job but that does not mean that criteria for assessing performance should not take into account how difficult the task is.

 

Curbishley to West Ham was clearly the right decision for their board? Yes?

 

Are you even being serious about real madrid? The only time I used them to compare was by pointing out how poorly they gel despite having such good players. I compared this to how a manager despite how good he is will not always gel with a football club. What is idiotic about using Real Madrid in that comparison?

 

Why would I care about whether or not Curbishly is the correct appointment?

 

Shepherd is paid a wacking amount to do the job but that does not mean that criteria for assessing performance should not take into account how difficult the task is.

 

So how can the lower-paid chairman at Liverpool appoint 2 trophy-winning ones in a row yet ours (despite wasting more money in the process) can't appoint one during his entire reign?

 

No not serious about RM, just a bit difficult to discern what your point was by posting repeated points in the same post. Just wanted to flag that as a waste of fucking space and my time  bluebigrazz.gif

 

You should care about other clubs like Charlton if you are then going to try and back your point up with stuff about appointments by the Liverpool board tbh 

 

I pointed out that the Liverpool board (lower paid than freddy) are competent at appointing managers. This is a fact, as their last two managers have won trophies. How do I know if Curbs is a good appointment? I don't know a great deal about Charlton to have an opinion on it, to be honest. I can't see into the future can I? I'm not paid millions to do a job that involves having an opinion on appointing managers and I haven't interviewed him lately. Is this ok?

[Mowen]

Thread abandoned as far as I'm concerned. I spent fucking ages typing my informative, well thought through and fully correct post as well!

[Howaythelads]

Under the circumstances Roeder was probably a decent choice. The club needs stability after the Debacle of Souness. The clubs needs a slow rebuilding job done and calmness restored. There wouldn't have been much point in bringing in someone who was going to demand access to another £50m given the amount that was squandered by Souness.

 

I think that in the case of previous managers such as Dalglish and Robson, they were appointed based on their success and reputation at other clubs. Note clubs. Dalglish won the league at two different clubs under entirely different circumstances, it was also hoped that he would add that bit of steel and ability to win 1-0 instead of losing 4-3 that was required to bridge the gap between Keegan's team finishing second and winning the title. Gullit and Souness, although both also having a record as trophy winners, appear to have been appointed for character traits as well, something you rate as important so you should be pleased and actually full of praise for the Board.

 

I suspect Roeder was also appointed for his character.

[madras]

Thompers, using Real Madrid as a comparison is idiotic unless you are like Freddy and believe the hype about the size of our club. RM can attract the best managerial talent in the world, they dont need to take risks on selections. They sometimes have got it wrong too. Getting the right man for a mid-table prem club is a nigh on impossible task. Hence the argument, what would you do? Shepherd is paid a wacking amount to do the job but that does not mean that criteria for assessing performance should not take into account how difficult the task is.

 

Curbishley to West Ham was clearly the right decision for their board? Yes?

 

Are you even being serious about real madrid? The only time I used them to compare was by pointing out how poorly they gel despite having such good players. I compared this to how a manager despite how good he is will not always gel with a football club. What is idiotic about using Real Madrid in that comparison?

 

Why would I care about whether or not Curbishly is the correct appointment?

 

Shepherd is paid a wacking amount to do the job but that does not mean that criteria for assessing performance should not take into account how difficult the task is.

 

So how can the lower-paid chairman at Liverpool appoint 2 trophy-winning ones in a row yet ours (despite wasting more money in the process) can't appoint one during his entire reign?

 

No not serious about RM, just a bit difficult to discern what your point was by posting repeated points in the same post. Just wanted to flag that as a waste of f***ing space and my time  bluebigrazz.gif

 

You should care about other clubs like Charlton if you are then going to try and back your point up with stuff about appointments by the Liverpool board tbh 

 

I pointed out that the Liverpool board (lower paid than freddy) are competent at appointing managers. This is a fact, as their last two managers have won trophies. How do I know if Curbs is a good appointment? I don't know a great deal about Charlton to have an opinion on it, to be honest. I can't see into the future can I? I'm not paid millions to do a job that involves having an opinion on appointing managers and I haven't interviewed him lately. Is this ok?

would that be the liverpool board that appointed souness and evans ?