***The Quote-tastic thread***

[Guest thompers]

Liverpool sack Benitez and appoint Titus Bramble as manager.

 

Liverpool get relegated.

 

It's all Brambles fault and not the chairmans? Oui?

[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.

 

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?

[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.

[Mick]

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?

 

Check-mate. bluebiggrin.gif

[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.

[Guest thompers]

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?

 

[Mick]

 

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.

 

You can ignore this if you want, Souness was a f***ing shite appointment, both on paper and in reality, nothing reasonable about it at all.

 

I'm amazed that you've come out with that one, think before you type.

[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.

[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.

 

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.

 

 

[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?

 

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?

[Guest thompers]

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.

[Dave]

Didn't Kenyon arrive after Mourinho?

 

EDIT - No he didn't. Was there in January, Mourinho arrived in June, both 2004.

[Dave]

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4153/is_20050426/ai_n14602013

 

'Chelsea chief executive Kenyon said: "Getting Jose to Chelsea ranks up there as among the best pieces of business I've ever done and importantly he's here for the long term. This isn't the end of the story - it's the start of it - and that's really exciting.'

[Guest thompers]

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?

[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.

[Guest thompers]

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4153/is_20050426/ai_n14602013

 

'Chelsea chief executive Kenyon said: "Getting Jose to Chelsea ranks up there as among the best pieces of business I've ever done and importantly he's here for the long term. This isn't the end of the story - it's the start of it - and that's really exciting.'

 

Abramovich to Kenyon "Get me Mourinho". Kenyon 'does' the business to get him. Pretty obvious to me that like, especially when you consider how involved he likes to get.

[Baggio]

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4153/is_20050426/ai_n14602013

 

'Chelsea chief executive Kenyon said: "Getting Jose to Chelsea ranks up there as among the best pieces of business I've ever done and importantly he's here for the long term. This isn't the end of the story - it's the start of it - and that's really exciting.'

 

whistling.gif

[Cajun]

Let me get this right, what someone done years ago counts for what we should do now.

 

Evern though Souness was clearly doing a shite job at Blackburn we were right to appoint him.

 

Should we sell Martins and get Shearer back? Shearer scored a shit load of goals, look at his CV!!

[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.

[tmonkey]

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

 

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

 

Wish Shephard would do something similar, wed probably still be in and around the top 4 had he done so. :wink:

[Guest thompers]

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.

[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.

 

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.

[Mick]

Let me get this right, what someone done years ago counts for what we should do now.

 

Evern though Souness was clearly doing a shite job at Blackburn we were right to appoint him.

 

Should we sell Martins and get Shearer back? Shearer scored a shit load of goals, look at his CV!!

 

I've updated my signature. bluebiggrin.gif

[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.

[Guest thompers]

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?