***The Quote-tastic thread***

[Cajun]

The majority of posts in here already have a thread where they could have been posted. Would be easier to start this thread again for its original intention and hope its not ruined again!

[Guest alex]

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.

I suspect the cost of his wages was a factor too.

[Mowen]

The majority of posts in here already have a thread where they could have been posted. Would be easier to start this thread again for its original intention and hope its not ruined again!

 

Then I could copy and past my post across and be lauded for my intelligence, as I deserve.

 

[Guest thompers]

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.

 

So I should be pleased that they appointed Gullit and Souness because of their characters even though their characters were clearly not the right ones for the club. Therefore their judgement of character failed in these instances yet I'm supposed to give them praise for this. What the fuck is that about?

 

Why should we accept a highly-paid-out-of-our-pockets board with a poor judge of character when lower-paid boards are capable of appointing successive successful managers?

[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 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 ?

 

Yes. Evans being better than Souness. Houllier being better than Evans and Rafa being better than Houllier. You see a pattern? It's called learning from mistakes and getting better at their job. A sign of intelligence. Do you think appointing poor managers, a good manager, then another two poor managers is a sign of any intelligence where running a football club is concerned?

[Guest thompers]

And for the record, by 'poor managers' I obviously mean managers who performed poorly for us, not managers with poor previous records.

[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 ?

 

Yes. Evans being better than Souness. Houllier being better than Evans and Rafa being better than Houllier. You see a pattern? It's called learning from mistakes and getting better at their job. A sign of intelligence. Do you think appointing poor managers, a good manager, then another two poor managers is a sign of any intelligence where running a football club is concerned?

we'll see then if roeder turns out better than souness we are doing it the step-by-step liverpool way.so doing it right means we'll be in liverpools position in about 3 managers time.if that board was as good as you mako out the jump from souness to rafa quality would have been instant and they appointed souness aswell.

[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 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 ?

 

Yes. Evans being better than Souness. Houllier being better than Evans and Rafa being better than Houllier. You see a pattern? It's called learning from mistakes and getting better at their job. A sign of intelligence. Do you think appointing poor managers, a good manager, then another two poor managers is a sign of any intelligence where running a football club is concerned?

we'll see then if roeder turns out better than souness we are doing it the step-by-step liverpool way.so doing it right means we'll be in liverpools position in about 3 managers time.

 

We're already not doing it Liverpools way. We went from bad to bad to good and back to bad. It's a completely different pattern. Must I go into detail? Please don't make me, I've got a bath ran and I wanna get in it

[Guest Rafa]

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

 

different chief executives. And in fact, different chief executives appointed Houllier and Rafa Benitez  bluewink.gif  Peter Robinson appointed Houllier, and it was Rick Parry that appointed Rafa Benitez.

[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.

I suspect the cost of his wages was a factor too.

 

Possibly, except I'm not aware of any history of the club being tight on wages for a manager, Alex.

[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 ?

 

Yes. Evans being better than Souness. Houllier being better than Evans and Rafa being better than Houllier. You see a pattern? It's called learning from mistakes and getting better at their job. A sign of intelligence. Do you think appointing poor managers, a good manager, then another two poor managers is a sign of any intelligence where running a football club is concerned?

we'll see then if roeder turns out better than souness we are doing it the step-by-step liverpool way.so doing it right means we'll be in liverpools position in about 3 managers time.

 

We're already not doing it Liverpools way. We went from bad to bad to good and back to bad. It's a completely different pattern. Must I go into detail? Please don't make me, I've got a bath ran and I wanna get in it

but i don't want to do it the liverpool way,much better the man u way...mediocre then quality,no little steps,problem is dalglish was as gilt edged as we could get,had the history etc...outside of wenger or ferguson i doubt i'd be to happy with anyone.

[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 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 ?

 

Yes. Evans being better than Souness. Houllier being better than Evans and Rafa being better than Houllier. You see a pattern? It's called learning from mistakes and getting better at their job. A sign of intelligence. Do you think appointing poor managers, a good manager, then another two poor managers is a sign of any intelligence where running a football club is concerned?

we'll see then if roeder turns out better than souness we are doing it the step-by-step liverpool way.so doing it right means we'll be in liverpools position in about 3 managers time.

 

We're already not doing it Liverpools way. We went from bad to bad to good and back to bad. It's a completely different pattern. Must I go into detail? Please don't make me, I've got a bath ran and I wanna get in it

but i don't want to do it the liverpool way,much better the man u way...mediocre then quality,no little steps,problem is dalglish was as gilt edged as we could get,had the history etc...outside of wenger or ferguson i doubt i'd be to happy with anyone.

 

We can do it any way that involves us moving forward, right? Over the decade of Shepherd's reign, we've gone backwards. Some people just have a fat man fetish that disables them from being able to establish where the blame actually lies.

[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:

 

Not the right man for the job, as he proved to be a FACT. Right?

 

so what would your criteria be - apart from hindsight 

 

At that time it would have been not to appoint a manager with a preferred defensive style to manage the, at the time, most attacking team in english football. I've already said that. I know you find it outrageous that anybody feels that Dalglish wasn't the man for the job, but he proved he wasn't, therefore I can't understand that you seem to still think he was the ideal appointment. Also, if Dalglish was so awesome, why didn't he win anything for us like he was able to at the other clubs he managed? The manager had a proven track record, so there must have been something else holding us back. What was it? Of course, we didn't have a devine right to trophies because he was the manager, so don't throw that old line in, but if success isn't achieved there's a reason for it somewhere along the line, and as you're so adamant that Dalglish was the man, where does the blame like for our failures in that period?

 

The idea was that, at the time, Keegans team needed "tactical astuteness" - not that I believe that sort of crap myself because I think teams should play to their strengths and that is "tactical astuteness" - but the ability to defend a lead etc etc was generally presumed to be the reason we didn't win the title and so a person who had done that and had the track record to back it up was the ideal replacement.

 

We weren't to know that he was going to rip the team apart. Even then, if he had had time, who knows what would have happened.

He also wasn't "my man", my man was Keegan. But the club had to move on.

 

As you admit we don;t have a divine right to trophies, accept he came close. He was 90 minutes from winning the FA Cup. We have only done that 3 times since the 1950's. 90 minutes from being a legend.

 

:winking:

 

Would you turn down Wenger, Mourhino etc today, if so why and on what basis, would you not think their track record was relevant ?

 

 

 

No I wouldn't turn down Wenger or Mourinho. Then again I'm not a premiership level chairman but if I was, I'd expect myself to be educated enough not to just chase any manager with the best trophy record.

 

Why do you think Man Utd wanted O Neill when it looked like Fergie was going to retire? There are certainly bigger names that have won more trophies around. They could have even chased old Kenny D themselves, he certainly has a better 'track record'.

 

I'll tell you why they wanted O Neill. Because 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. Are you learning yet?

 

so you think that a manager who had won all the honours he won at a big city club like Liverpool, with fanatical fans just like us, didn't have the right character to repeat that success at Newcastle ?

 

What about Benitez, does a dour character like him have the "right character" or do you think he's an extrovert like Shankly was ?

 

Dalglish was a players manager in the dressing room and on the training ground, just like Keegan was, he had coped with pressure and the demands of a club always in the spotlight. You are simply applying hindsight. With hindsight he could have actually been given more time ........ and if he had won one single huge game he would have had more time.

 

 

Why are you asking me questions about Dalglish's credentials for the job? I'm not running a premiership football team and I'm not pretending that I'm any more capable than Shepherd is? It's ok for me and you to discuss Dalglish and his record but can you sympathise with Shepherd for getting it wrong just because you or me thought it was a good appointment? He's a premiership level chairman, he should be more qualified than you or I at appointing managers, but the way you break it down is like "well if me and you thought it was a good appointment then how can we critisise Shepherd". Because Shepherd is paid millions to make these decisions so should therefore be better than yourself and I when it comes to identifying appropriate managers. Is it sinking in yet?

 

why should he know better than me just because he had the money to buy himself a position on the board of the football club ? To date, the board have made on bad appointment that I can't figure out why they did it. Take note, THE BOARD.

 

is it sinking in yet ?

 

And, as we have been 5th best in our field over the course of a decade, I don't think its too bad. Is it sinking in yet ?

 

 

 

Because if he didn't know better than you then surely he'd have the sense to hire a director of football, in order to protect his investment better? He's made several poor appointments, not one, because as I explained earlier none of the appointments paid off with a trophy. We should expect to have won a trophy, as expectations are set by the amount of money spent. We established this by pointing out that Man Utd/Chelsea both consider 2nd place failure. Therefore, as the next highest spending club, 5th should be considered failure. Right? But wait, we haven't been 5th since Bobby left. So we're currently even lower than our under achieving average. Appointing a manager with a good history with a good record doesn't make it a good appointment. A good appointment is only a good appointment when it pays off. Has any of the appointments Shepherd has made paid off, when you consider the high expectations (which relate to the money spent)?

 

NE5? No response?

 

hindsight is easy. If winning titles with 2 clubs, 2 FA Cups and 3 manager of the year awards isn't good enough for you, how would you choose a manager ?

 

Or would you pay no attention to track record and give the job to someone like say, Kevin Ball, because he is "determined" ?

 

 

 

 

[NE5]

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".

 

Indeed, especially as Charlton Athletic had done the same thing earlier for a short while until Curbishley became the number 1. Most definitely a "lack of planning" I would say.

 

 

[NE5]

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.

 

Well, if you don't think a replacement for Scott Parker is better than him, then there is no point in replacing him in fact it would be stupid to replace him 

[Guest smoggeordie]

This thread is purely for transfer predictions and actually transfers to be discussed. I think there is another thread (or two) to discuss the board.

[NE5]

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?

 

Indeed. it will be interesting to see exactly what guaranteed success West Ham have with their "plan" of appointing Curbishley not to mention Villa of appointing O'Neill ............

 

 

[NE5]

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:

 

sorry thompers, I'm not at the PC 24 hours a day I had some work to do  :winking:

[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?

 

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:

 

Not the right man for the job, as he proved to be a FACT. Right?

 

so what would your criteria be - apart from hindsight 

 

At that time it would have been not to appoint a manager with a preferred defensive style to manage the, at the time, most attacking team in english football. I've already said that. I know you find it outrageous that anybody feels that Dalglish wasn't the man for the job, but he proved he wasn't, therefore I can't understand that you seem to still think he was the ideal appointment. Also, if Dalglish was so awesome, why didn't he win anything for us like he was able to at the other clubs he managed? The manager had a proven track record, so there must have been something else holding us back. What was it? Of course, we didn't have a devine right to trophies because he was the manager, so don't throw that old line in, but if success isn't achieved there's a reason for it somewhere along the line, and as you're so adamant that Dalglish was the man, where does the blame like for our failures in that period?

 

The idea was that, at the time, Keegans team needed "tactical astuteness" - not that I believe that sort of crap myself because I think teams should play to their strengths and that is "tactical astuteness" - but the ability to defend a lead etc etc was generally presumed to be the reason we didn't win the title and so a person who had done that and had the track record to back it up was the ideal replacement.

 

We weren't to know that he was going to rip the team apart. Even then, if he had had time, who knows what would have happened.

He also wasn't "my man", my man was Keegan. But the club had to move on.

 

As you admit we don;t have a divine right to trophies, accept he came close. He was 90 minutes from winning the FA Cup. We have only done that 3 times since the 1950's. 90 minutes from being a legend.

 

:winking:

 

Would you turn down Wenger, Mourhino etc today, if so why and on what basis, would you not think their track record was relevant ?

 

 

 

No I wouldn't turn down Wenger or Mourinho. Then again I'm not a premiership level chairman but if I was, I'd expect myself to be educated enough not to just chase any manager with the best trophy record.

 

Why do you think Man Utd wanted O Neill when it looked like Fergie was going to retire? There are certainly bigger names that have won more trophies around. They could have even chased old Kenny D themselves, he certainly has a better 'track record'.

 

I'll tell you why they wanted O Neill. Because 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. Are you learning yet?

 

so you think that a manager who had won all the honours he won at a big city club like Liverpool, with fanatical fans just like us, didn't have the right character to repeat that success at Newcastle ?

 

What about Benitez, does a dour character like him have the "right character" or do you think he's an extrovert like Shankly was ?

 

Dalglish was a players manager in the dressing room and on the training ground, just like Keegan was, he had coped with pressure and the demands of a club always in the spotlight. You are simply applying hindsight. With hindsight he could have actually been given more time ........ and if he had won one single huge game he would have had more time.

 

 

Why are you asking me questions about Dalglish's credentials for the job? I'm not running a premiership football team and I'm not pretending that I'm any more capable than Shepherd is? It's ok for me and you to discuss Dalglish and his record but can you sympathise with Shepherd for getting it wrong just because you or me thought it was a good appointment? He's a premiership level chairman, he should be more qualified than you or I at appointing managers, but the way you break it down is like "well if me and you thought it was a good appointment then how can we critisise Shepherd". Because Shepherd is paid millions to make these decisions so should therefore be better than yourself and I when it comes to identifying appropriate managers. Is it sinking in yet?

 

why should he know better than me just because he had the money to buy himself a position on the board of the football club ? To date, the board have made on bad appointment that I can't figure out why they did it. Take note, THE BOARD.

 

is it sinking in yet ?

 

And, as we have been 5th best in our field over the course of a decade, I don't think its too bad. Is it sinking in yet ?

 

 

 

Because if he didn't know better than you then surely he'd have the sense to hire a director of football, in order to protect his investment better? He's made several poor appointments, not one, because as I explained earlier none of the appointments paid off with a trophy. We should expect to have won a trophy, as expectations are set by the amount of money spent. We established this by pointing out that Man Utd/Chelsea both consider 2nd place failure. Therefore, as the next highest spending club, 5th should be considered failure. Right? But wait, we haven't been 5th since Bobby left. So we're currently even lower than our under achieving average. Appointing a manager with a good history with a good record doesn't make it a good appointment. A good appointment is only a good appointment when it pays off. Has any of the appointments Shepherd has made paid off, when you consider the high expectations (which relate to the money spent)?

 

NE5? No response?

 

hindsight is easy. If winning titles with 2 clubs, 2 FA Cups and 3 manager of the year awards isn't good enough for you, how would you choose a manager ?

 

Or would you pay no attention to track record and give the job to someone like say, Kevin Ball, because he is "determined" ?

 

 

 

 

 

A competent chairman should get the right mix between character, track record and personality. Do you think by just referring to track record that this is a good enough defense for the appointment?

 

If track record is the most important thing then why didn't Man Utd when they thought Fergy was going to retire, or Liverpool want the manager with the best track record?

 

Why are other chairmen SIGNIFICANTLY better at identifying the best man for their respective clubs, despite ours being the highest paid in the country? Shouldn't he, in theory, therefore be the best in the country at his job?

[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:

 

sorry thompers, I'm not at the PC 24 hours a day I had some work to do  :winking:

 

I posted it yesterday and you'd been online and posted lots since.

[NE5]

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?

 

they did when they went for Dalglish ie championships and FA Cups, ditto Gullit - FA Cup in his first job, and Robson.

 

 

[Taylor Swift]

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:

 

Not the right man for the job, as he proved to be a FACT. Right?

 

so what would your criteria be - apart from hindsight 

 

At that time it would have been not to appoint a manager with a preferred defensive style to manage the, at the time, most attacking team in english football. I've already said that. I know you find it outrageous that anybody feels that Dalglish wasn't the man for the job, but he proved he wasn't, therefore I can't understand that you seem to still think he was the ideal appointment. Also, if Dalglish was so awesome, why didn't he win anything for us like he was able to at the other clubs he managed? The manager had a proven track record, so there must have been something else holding us back. What was it? Of course, we didn't have a devine right to trophies because he was the manager, so don't throw that old line in, but if success isn't achieved there's a reason for it somewhere along the line, and as you're so adamant that Dalglish was the man, where does the blame like for our failures in that period?

 

The idea was that, at the time, Keegans team needed "tactical astuteness" - not that I believe that sort of crap myself because I think teams should play to their strengths and that is "tactical astuteness" - but the ability to defend a lead etc etc was generally presumed to be the reason we didn't win the title and so a person who had done that and had the track record to back it up was the ideal replacement.

 

We weren't to know that he was going to rip the team apart. Even then, if he had had time, who knows what would have happened.

He also wasn't "my man", my man was Keegan. But the club had to move on.

 

As you admit we don;t have a divine right to trophies, accept he came close. He was 90 minutes from winning the FA Cup. We have only done that 3 times since the 1950's. 90 minutes from being a legend.

 

:winking:

 

Would you turn down Wenger, Mourhino etc today, if so why and on what basis, would you not think their track record was relevant ?

 

 

 

No I wouldn't turn down Wenger or Mourinho. Then again I'm not a premiership level chairman but if I was, I'd expect myself to be educated enough not to just chase any manager with the best trophy record.

 

Why do you think Man Utd wanted O Neill when it looked like Fergie was going to retire? There are certainly bigger names that have won more trophies around. They could have even chased old Kenny D themselves, he certainly has a better 'track record'.

 

I'll tell you why they wanted O Neill. Because 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. Are you learning yet?

 

so you think that a manager who had won all the honours he won at a big city club like Liverpool, with fanatical fans just like us, didn't have the right character to repeat that success at Newcastle ?

 

What about Benitez, does a dour character like him have the "right character" or do you think he's an extrovert like Shankly was ?

 

Dalglish was a players manager in the dressing room and on the training ground, just like Keegan was, he had coped with pressure and the demands of a club always in the spotlight. You are simply applying hindsight. With hindsight he could have actually been given more time ........ and if he had won one single huge game he would have had more time.

 

 

Why are you asking me questions about Dalglish's credentials for the job? I'm not running a premiership football team and I'm not pretending that I'm any more capable than Shepherd is? It's ok for me and you to discuss Dalglish and his record but can you sympathise with Shepherd for getting it wrong just because you or me thought it was a good appointment? He's a premiership level chairman, he should be more qualified than you or I at appointing managers, but the way you break it down is like "well if me and you thought it was a good appointment then how can we critisise Shepherd". Because Shepherd is paid millions to make these decisions so should therefore be better than yourself and I when it comes to identifying appropriate managers. Is it sinking in yet?

 

why should he know better than me just because he had the money to buy himself a position on the board of the football club ? To date, the board have made on bad appointment that I can't figure out why they did it. Take note, THE BOARD.

 

is it sinking in yet ?

 

And, as we have been 5th best in our field over the course of a decade, I don't think its too bad. Is it sinking in yet ?

 

 

 

Because if he didn't know better than you then surely he'd have the sense to hire a director of football, in order to protect his investment better? He's made several poor appointments, not one, because as I explained earlier none of the appointments paid off with a trophy. We should expect to have won a trophy, as expectations are set by the amount of money spent. We established this by pointing out that Man Utd/Chelsea both consider 2nd place failure. Therefore, as the next highest spending club, 5th should be considered failure. Right? But wait, we haven't been 5th since Bobby left. So we're currently even lower than our under achieving average. Appointing a manager with a good history with a good record doesn't make it a good appointment. A good appointment is only a good appointment when it pays off. Has any of the appointments Shepherd has made paid off, when you consider the high expectations (which relate to the money spent)?

 

NE5? No response?

 

hindsight is easy. If winning titles with 2 clubs, 2 FA Cups and 3 manager of the year awards isn't good enough for you, how would you choose a manager ?

 

Or would you pay no attention to track record and give the job to someone like say, Kevin Ball, because he is "determined" ?

 

 

 

 

 

A competent chairman should get the right mix between character, track record and personality. Do you think by just referring to track record that this is a good enough defense for the appointment?

 

If track record is the most important thing then why didn't Man Utd when they thought Fergy was going to retire, or Liverpool want the manager with the best track record?

 

Why are other chairmen SIGNIFICANTLY better at identifying the best man for their respective clubs, despite ours being the highest paid in the country? Shouldn't he, in theory, therefore be the best in the country at his job?

 

Just quoting this 'cos it's the longest quote I've seen

[NE5]

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 ?

 

Yes. Evans being better than Souness. Houllier being better than Evans and Rafa being better than Houllier. You see a pattern? It's called learning from mistakes and getting better at their job. A sign of intelligence. Do you think appointing poor managers, a good manager, then another two poor managers is a sign of any intelligence where running a football club is concerned?

 

so, do you think that Evans, Souness and Moran were better than Shankly and Paisley ?

 

 

[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?

 

they did when they went for Dalglish ie championships and FA Cups, ditto Gullit - FA Cup in his first job, and Robson.

 

 

 

So they appointed a manager based on their track record and not their personality then! Or if they did base it on character, then you're surely admitting Shepherd is a poor judge of character? Shouldn't the highest paid chairman be a better judge than the other chairmen?

 

Maybe they should get somebody based on whether their charater and personality fits the club, and do this with the intention of achieving results and not with the intention of sorting the bad boys out.

[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 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 ?

 

Yes. Evans being better than Souness. Houllier being better than Evans and Rafa being better than Houllier. You see a pattern? It's called learning from mistakes and getting better at their job. A sign of intelligence. Do you think appointing poor managers, a good manager, then another two poor managers is a sign of any intelligence where running a football club is concerned?

 

so, do you think that Evans, Souness and Moran were better than Shankly and Paisley ?

 

 

 

Why?