Newcastle submit £300m plans to develop SJP - Official

[NE5]

We can't talk about 'the current Board' as though nothing has changed since 1992. Sir John Hall ran things in a different way from Shepherd, and Shepherd himself has become more and more autocratic and involved in the football side over the years since he took over.

 

Regardless of the amount of money being spent, and who the manager is, we'll continue to decline because in Freddie we've effectively got a Director of Football who knows bugger all about football.

 

 

the same major shareholders as in 1992 ?

 

You are not seriously suggesting that Shepherd runs the club himself, and appoints the managers himself, without the major shareholders ?

 

I've said this before, and I'm still staggered that people appear to believe this is the case.

 

All the managers have been backed to the same degree by the same major shareholders too.

 

 

[Cronky]

We can't talk about 'the current Board' as though nothing has changed since 1992. Sir John Hall ran things in a different way from Shepherd, and Shepherd himself has become more and more autocratic and involved in the football side over the years since he took over.

 

Regardless of the amount of money being spent, and who the manager is, we'll continue to decline because in Freddie we've effectively got a Director of Football who knows bugger all about football.

 

 

the same major shareholders as in 1992 ?

 

You are not seriously suggesting that Shepherd runs the club himself, and appoints the managers himself, without the major shareholders ?

 

I've said this before, and I'm still staggered that people appear to believe this is the case.

 

All the managers have been backed to the same degree by the same major shareholders too.

 

 

 

It seems pretty clear to me that the Halls are no longer interested in the day to day running of the club, and haven't been for some time. I'm sure that their approval is sought before a major decision like the appointing of a manager is made, but that's as far as it goes. Up until recently, they've been happy to hand the reins to Freddie.

 

I think they now realise that Freddie has been screwing up, and that there's a better alternative both for themselves and the club.

[NE5]

We can't talk about 'the current Board' as though nothing has changed since 1992. Sir John Hall ran things in a different way from Shepherd, and Shepherd himself has become more and more autocratic and involved in the football side over the years since he took over.

 

Regardless of the amount of money being spent, and who the manager is, we'll continue to decline because in Freddie we've effectively got a Director of Football who knows bugger all about football.

 

 

the same major shareholders as in 1992 ?

 

You are not seriously suggesting that Shepherd runs the club himself, and appoints the managers himself, without the major shareholders ?

 

I've said this before, and I'm still staggered that people appear to believe this is the case.

 

All the managers have been backed to the same degree by the same major shareholders too.

 

 

 

It seems pretty clear to me that the Halls are no longer interested in the day to day running of the club, and haven't been for some time. I'm sure that their approval is sought before a major decision like the appointing of a manager is made, but that's as far as it goes. Up until recently, they've been happy to hand the reins to Freddie.

 

I think they now realise that Freddie has been screwing up, and that there's a better alternative both for themselves and the club.

 

you "think" they realise Shepherd is screwing up ? Don't you know ? Or are you just guessing.

 

On the contrary, if THEY picked Souness, it is THEY who screwed up. And neither you, nor I, know. Do you ?

 

If I ran Newcastle United, and I was the major shareholder, one thing I would NOT do is allow someone else to run it for me, or make the single biggest appointment in the football club, if I thought they were screwing up, and as you suggest, they APPROVED of the managerial appointments, at the very least.

 

 

[Baggio]

We can't talk about 'the current Board' as though nothing has changed since 1992. Sir John Hall ran things in a different way from Shepherd, and Shepherd himself has become more and more autocratic and involved in the football side over the years since he took over.

 

Regardless of the amount of money being spent, and who the manager is, we'll continue to decline because in Freddie we've effectively got a Director of Football who knows bugger all about football.

 

 

the same major shareholders as in 1992 ?

 

You are not seriously suggesting that Shepherd runs the club himself, and appoints the managers himself, without the major shareholders ?

 

I've said this before, and I'm still staggered that people appear to believe this is the case.

 

All the managers have been backed to the same degree by the same major shareholders too.

 

 

 

It seems pretty clear to me that the Halls are no longer interested in the day to day running of the club, and haven't been for some time. I'm sure that their approval is sought before a major decision like the appointing of a manager is made, but that's as far as it goes. Up until recently, they've been happy to hand the reins to Freddie.

 

I think they now realise that Freddie has been screwing up, and that there's a better alternative both for themselves and the club.

 

An interesting piece from Sir Bobby's book about the board...

 

I worked away with my one-season deal and gradually imposed my authority on the team. Really, there was no Newcastle 'board' to talk to or consult with. The chairman would often say to me, 'I'll put it to the board,' and I would reply, 'Chairman, there is no board. There's you and there's Douglas Hall'

[Cajun]

We can't talk about 'the current Board' as though nothing has changed since 1992. Sir John Hall ran things in a different way from Shepherd, and Shepherd himself has become more and more autocratic and involved in the football side over the years since he took over.

 

Regardless of the amount of money being spent, and who the manager is, we'll continue to decline because in Freddie we've effectively got a Director of Football who knows bugger all about football.

 

 

the same major shareholders as in 1992 ?

 

You are not seriously suggesting that Shepherd runs the club himself, and appoints the managers himself, without the major shareholders ?

 

I've said this before, and I'm still staggered that people appear to believe this is the case.

 

All the managers have been backed to the same degree by the same major shareholders too.

 

 

 

It seems pretty clear to me that the Halls are no longer interested in the day to day running of the club, and haven't been for some time. I'm sure that their approval is sought before a major decision like the appointing of a manager is made, but that's as far as it goes. Up until recently, they've been happy to hand the reins to Freddie.

 

I think they now realise that Freddie has been screwing up, and that there's a better alternative both for themselves and the club.

 

An interesting piece from Sir Bobby's book about the board...

 

I worked away with my one-season deal and gradually imposed my authority on the team. Really, there was no Newcastle 'board' to talk to or consult with. The chairman would often say to me, 'I'll put it to the board,' and I would reply, 'Chairman, there is no board. There's you and there's Douglas Hall'

 

I imagine it like when Stewie runs his business in Family Guy, bet Shepherd has the same Sesame street phone too

[Parky]

We can't talk about 'the current Board' as though nothing has changed since 1992. Sir John Hall ran things in a different way from Shepherd, and Shepherd himself has become more and more autocratic and involved in the football side over the years since he took over.

 

Regardless of the amount of money being spent, and who the manager is, we'll continue to decline because in Freddie we've effectively got a Director of Football who knows bugger all about football.

 

 

the same major shareholders as in 1992 ?

 

You are not seriously suggesting that Shepherd runs the club himself, and appoints the managers himself, without the major shareholders ?

 

I've said this before, and I'm still staggered that people appear to believe this is the case.

 

All the managers have been backed to the same degree by the same major shareholders too.

 

 

 

It seems pretty clear to me that the Halls are no longer interested in the day to day running of the club, and haven't been for some time. I'm sure that their approval is sought before a major decision like the appointing of a manager is made, but that's as far as it goes. Up until recently, they've been happy to hand the reins to Freddie.

 

I think they now realise that Freddie has been screwing up, and that there's a better alternative both for themselves and the club.

 

An interesting piece from Sir Bobby's book about the board...

 

I worked away with my one-season deal and gradually imposed my authority on the team. Really, there was no Newcastle 'board' to talk to or consult with. The chairman would often say to me, 'I'll put it to the board,' and I would reply, 'Chairman, there is no board. There's you and there's Douglas Hall'

 

Probably half a dozen sticky blow up dolls make up the rest. blueyes.gif

[Mick]

 

I don't want that to happen any more than you do Mick

 

I know.

[OzzieMandias]

Nor is there any need to constantly blind yourself to the fact that we have moved up the football ladder hugely under the current board, which is the point I am making, whether the current situation is not as good as when Keegan was manager or not.

 

I see. So, we've moved up the football ladder despite the fact that we've moved down the football ladder.

[OzzieMandias]

This is the same for EVERY club, Arsenal, Chelsea, ManU and Liverpool have all made bad choices too. I know you won't believe this, but its true.

 

Perhaps you can name the bad managerial choices any of these clubs have made in the last ten years.

 

Gullit...?

 

 

aye, Gullit. And Vialli too, where is he these days 

 

When did Liverpool appoint Roy Evans ? And just before Wenger, Arsenal appointed Rioch, who last a

year.

 

Roy Evans? 1994. More than ten years ago. Rioch? 1995. More than ten years ago.

 

Food for thought for mandiarse is that if Keegan had not left, then he could well still be here just as Wenger and Ferguson.

 

But here on planet Earth, Keegan did leave.

 

How many other clubs can you name that haven't made any shit appointments Ozzie ?

 

The discussion was about Liverpool, Man U, Arsenal and Chelsea, following on from your post that specifically cited those clubs. Stop trying to move the goalposts just because it's sunk in that you can't win that one.

[NE5]

This is the same for EVERY club, Arsenal, Chelsea, ManU and Liverpool have all made bad choices too. I know you won't believe this, but its true.

 

Perhaps you can name the bad managerial choices any of these clubs have made in the last ten years.

 

Gullit...?

 

 

aye, Gullit. And Vialli too, where is he these days 

 

When did Liverpool appoint Roy Evans ? And just before Wenger, Arsenal appointed Rioch, who last a

year.

 

Roy Evans? 1994. More than ten years ago. Rioch? 1995. More than ten years ago.

 

Food for thought for mandiarse is that if Keegan had not left, then he could well still be here just as Wenger and Ferguson.

 

But here on planet Earth, Keegan did leave.

 

How many other clubs can you name that haven't made any shit appointments Ozzie ?

 

The discussion was about Liverpool, Man U, Arsenal and Chelsea, following on from your post that specifically cited those clubs. Stop trying to move the goalposts just because it's sunk in that you can't win that one.

 

Are you conceding that only 4 clubs have made less bad choices as manager than us ?

 

As i said, on planet earth, we will see how manu and Arsenal do when their current managers call it a day.

 

 

[OzzieMandias]

This is the same for EVERY club, Arsenal, Chelsea, ManU and Liverpool have all made bad choices too. I know you won't believe this, but its true.

 

Perhaps you can name the bad managerial choices any of these clubs have made in the last ten years.

 

Gullit...?

 

 

aye, Gullit. And Vialli too, where is he these days 

 

When did Liverpool appoint Roy Evans ? And just before Wenger, Arsenal appointed Rioch, who last a

year.

 

Roy Evans? 1994. More than ten years ago. Rioch? 1995. More than ten years ago.

 

Food for thought for mandiarse is that if Keegan had not left, then he could well still be here just as Wenger and Ferguson.

 

But here on planet Earth, Keegan did leave.

 

How many other clubs can you name that haven't made any shit appointments Ozzie ?

 

The discussion was about Liverpool, Man U, Arsenal and Chelsea, following on from your post that specifically cited those clubs. Stop trying to move the goalposts just because it's sunk in that you can't win that one.

 

Are you conceding that only 4 clubs have made less bad choices as manager than us ?

 

No, I was pointing out that clubs you mentioned in defence of Shepherd re. managerial appointments as "having made bad decisions" had, in the period of Shepherd's reign, made hardly any bad managerial decisions. Your pie-eating poster boy has, in fact, made more bad managerial appointments than all four of those clubs put together.

 

As i said, on planet earth...

 

Do let us know when you intend to arrive.

[NE5]

This is the same for EVERY club, Arsenal, Chelsea, ManU and Liverpool have all made bad choices too. I know you won't believe this, but its true.

 

Perhaps you can name the bad managerial choices any of these clubs have made in the last ten years.

 

Gullit...?

 

 

aye, Gullit. And Vialli too, where is he these days 

 

When did Liverpool appoint Roy Evans ? And just before Wenger, Arsenal appointed Rioch, who last a

year.

 

Roy Evans? 1994. More than ten years ago. Rioch? 1995. More than ten years ago.

 

Food for thought for mandiarse is that if Keegan had not left, then he could well still be here just as Wenger and Ferguson.

 

But here on planet Earth, Keegan did leave.

 

How many other clubs can you name that haven't made any shit appointments Ozzie ?

 

The discussion was about Liverpool, Man U, Arsenal and Chelsea, following on from your post that specifically cited those clubs. Stop trying to move the goalposts just because it's sunk in that you can't win that one.

 

Are you conceding that only 4 clubs have made less bad choices as manager than us ?

 

No, I was pointing out that clubs you mentioned in defence of Shepherd re. managerial appointments as "having made bad decisions" had, in the period of Shepherd's reign, made hardly any bad managerial decisions. Your pie-eating poster boy has, in fact, made more bad managerial appointments than all four of those clubs put together.

 

As i said, on planet earth...

 

Do let us know when you intend to arrive.

 

Unfortunately for you, the word "four" is significant, again. Because they are the only 4 clubs that you can name that have managed to appoint managers who have qualified more for europe than us over the period in question.

 

Let us know when you will begin to base your "opinions" on factual information will you.

 

 

[Cronky]

We can't talk about 'the current Board' as though nothing has changed since 1992. Sir John Hall ran things in a different way from Shepherd, and Shepherd himself has become more and more autocratic and involved in the football side over the years since he took over.

 

Regardless of the amount of money being spent, and who the manager is, we'll continue to decline because in Freddie we've effectively got a Director of Football who knows bugger all about football.

 

 

the same major shareholders as in 1992 ?

 

You are not seriously suggesting that Shepherd runs the club himself, and appoints the managers himself, without the major shareholders ?

 

I've said this before, and I'm still staggered that people appear to believe this is the case.

 

All the managers have been backed to the same degree by the same major shareholders too.

 

 

 

It seems pretty clear to me that the Halls are no longer interested in the day to day running of the club, and haven't been for some time. I'm sure that their approval is sought before a major decision like the appointing of a manager is made, but that's as far as it goes. Up until recently, they've been happy to hand the reins to Freddie.

 

I think they now realise that Freddie has been screwing up, and that there's a better alternative both for themselves and the club.

 

you "think" they realise Shepherd is screwing up ? Don't you know ? Or are you just guessing.

 

On the contrary, if THEY picked Souness, it is THEY who screwed up. And neither you, nor I, know. Do you ?

 

If I ran Newcastle United, and I was the major shareholder, one thing I would NOT do is allow someone else to run it for me, or make the single biggest appointment in the football club, if I thought they were screwing up, and as you suggest, they APPROVED of the managerial appointments, at the very least.

 

 

 

According to Sir Bob's book, in all his time at Newcastle, he only saw Douglas Hall 3 or 4 times. The guy lives in Gibraltar, and Sir John is retired. It's completely obvious that they're absentee owners. Neither of the Halls seem to be big football fans, and it suited them to take a back seat and let Freddie, who's the real enthusiast, run the show. Sir John doesn't want to take over again, and Douglas doesn't seem to have the ability.

 

I think the way the last two managers have been recruited reflects this arrangement. I think Freddie did all the sounding out and then presented his chosen candidate to the Halls for their approval. Even if they weren't convinced that Freddie had found the best possible man, if they say no they really have to go ahead and find a better man themselves, and they've got no inclination to get involved in that way. I don't think they're interested in much beyond the business side.

 

But personally - and this is where I differ from a few - I don't think the main problem has been the choice of manager. It's been the way the managers have been treated, and the position they're put in. Shepherd acts like a Director of Football, and the managers don't have the power and initiative that is needed, particularly in the transfer market.

 

[Parky]

We can't talk about 'the current Board' as though nothing has changed since 1992. Sir John Hall ran things in a different way from Shepherd, and Shepherd himself has become more and more autocratic and involved in the football side over the years since he took over.

 

Regardless of the amount of money being spent, and who the manager is, we'll continue to decline because in Freddie we've effectively got a Director of Football who knows bugger all about football.

 

 

the same major shareholders as in 1992 ?

 

You are not seriously suggesting that Shepherd runs the club himself, and appoints the managers himself, without the major shareholders ?

 

I've said this before, and I'm still staggered that people appear to believe this is the case.

 

All the managers have been backed to the same degree by the same major shareholders too.

 

 

 

It seems pretty clear to me that the Halls are no longer interested in the day to day running of the club, and haven't been for some time. I'm sure that their approval is sought before a major decision like the appointing of a manager is made, but that's as far as it goes. Up until recently, they've been happy to hand the reins to Freddie.

 

I think they now realise that Freddie has been screwing up, and that there's a better alternative both for themselves and the club.

 

you "think" they realise Shepherd is screwing up ? Don't you know ? Or are you just guessing.

 

On the contrary, if THEY picked Souness, it is THEY who screwed up. And neither you, nor I, know. Do you ?

 

If I ran Newcastle United, and I was the major shareholder, one thing I would NOT do is allow someone else to run it for me, or make the single biggest appointment in the football club, if I thought they were screwing up, and as you suggest, they APPROVED of the managerial appointments, at the very least.

 

 

 

According to Sir Bob's book, in all his time at Newcastle, he only saw Douglas Hall 3 or 4 times. The guy lives in Gibraltar, and Sir John is retired. It's completely obvious that they're absentee owners. Neither of the Halls seem to be big football fans, and it suited them to take a back seat and let Freddie, who's the real enthusiast, run the show. Sir John doesn't want to take over again, and Douglas doesn't seem to have the ability.

 

I think the way the last two managers have been recruited reflects this arrangement. I think Freddie did all the sounding out and then presented his chosen candidate to the Halls for their approval. Even if they weren't convinced that Freddie had found the best possible man, if they say no they really have to go ahead and find a better man themselves, and they've got no inclination to get involved in that way. I don't think they're interested in much beyond the business side.

 

But personally - and this is where I differ from a few - I don't think the main problem has been the choice of manager. It's been the way the managers have been treated, and the position they're put in. Shepherd acts like a Director of Football, and the managers don't have the power and initiative that is needed, particularly in the transfer market.

 

 

Good post Bobby. Suffice to say and it's been said a million times on here, there is a distinct lack of professionalism and objectivity at the highest level. I'm not one to bang the drum about FS being incompetant because he is far from that. His main failing is to hire real help for himself on the football side, even a sounding board with experince in the game would do wonders.

[NE5]

We can't talk about 'the current Board' as though nothing has changed since 1992. Sir John Hall ran things in a different way from Shepherd, and Shepherd himself has become more and more autocratic and involved in the football side over the years since he took over.

 

Regardless of the amount of money being spent, and who the manager is, we'll continue to decline because in Freddie we've effectively got a Director of Football who knows bugger all about football.

 

 

the same major shareholders as in 1992 ?

 

You are not seriously suggesting that Shepherd runs the club himself, and appoints the managers himself, without the major shareholders ?

 

I've said this before, and I'm still staggered that people appear to believe this is the case.

 

All the managers have been backed to the same degree by the same major shareholders too.

 

 

 

It seems pretty clear to me that the Halls are no longer interested in the day to day running of the club, and haven't been for some time. I'm sure that their approval is sought before a major decision like the appointing of a manager is made, but that's as far as it goes. Up until recently, they've been happy to hand the reins to Freddie.

 

I think they now realise that Freddie has been screwing up, and that there's a better alternative both for themselves and the club.

 

you "think" they realise Shepherd is screwing up ? Don't you know ? Or are you just guessing.

 

On the contrary, if THEY picked Souness, it is THEY who screwed up. And neither you, nor I, know. Do you ?

 

If I ran Newcastle United, and I was the major shareholder, one thing I would NOT do is allow someone else to run it for me, or make the single biggest appointment in the football club, if I thought they were screwing up, and as you suggest, they APPROVED of the managerial appointments, at the very least.

 

 

 

According to Sir Bob's book, in all his time at Newcastle, he only saw Douglas Hall 3 or 4 times. The guy lives in Gibraltar, and Sir John is retired. It's completely obvious that they're absentee owners. Neither of the Halls seem to be big football fans, and it suited them to take a back seat and let Freddie, who's the real enthusiast, run the show. Sir John doesn't want to take over again, and Douglas doesn't seem to have the ability.

 

I think the way the last two managers have been recruited reflects this arrangement. I think Freddie did all the sounding out and then presented his chosen candidate to the Halls for their approval. Even if they weren't convinced that Freddie had found the best possible man, if they say no they really have to go ahead and find a better man themselves, and they've got no inclination to get involved in that way. I don't think they're interested in much beyond the business side.

 

But personally - and this is where I differ from a few - I don't think the main problem has been the choice of manager. It's been the way the managers have been treated, and the position they're put in. Shepherd acts like a Director of Football, and the managers don't have the power and initiative that is needed, particularly in the transfer market.

 

 

Same as your last post. Presumptious. Why do you "think" this, is it because you WANT it to be the case ? If so, why ? Is it because everyone else says so and you simply have a fixation with the fact that its Freds fault if it rains ?

 

The simple FACT - is the 2 major shareholders have lost interest and want to sell, I agree with you on that, but if they want to sell the club they would not - that is if they value their investment at all - allow someone else to run it badly, if this IS how they perceive it to be run.  The logical conclusion is that they are still making the key decisions or are heavily involved in them, especially the biggest one of all.

 

Now, I don't WANT to think ANYTHING. This is why, in my opinion, this is the logical conclusion.

 

I hardly need to point out - again, although it seems I have to - that over the course of the past decade the club has not actually been badly run or badly managed on the pitch at all until 2 and a half years ago, as only 4 clubs have qualified for europe more than us, where we have also played in front of sell out crowds and bought major international footballers.

 

I can't for the life of me see what you mean by saying that Shepherd "acts like a Director of Football".

 

And I'm sorry but your last line is the final indication that you are simply bashing Shepherd [i would normally say the board here but it is clear you only mean Shepherd and are prepared to let the major shareholders get away with any criticism at all ]  for anything you can think of, all the managers have had loads of money to bring in players to the club, and Souness especially was allowed to get rid of players he should not have for relative peanuts, so he certainly was not prevented from choosing his own players.

 

 

[biggs]

We can't talk about 'the current Board' as though nothing has changed since 1992. Sir John Hall ran things in a different way from Shepherd, and Shepherd himself has become more and more autocratic and involved in the football side over the years since he took over.

 

Regardless of the amount of money being spent, and who the manager is, we'll continue to decline because in Freddie we've effectively got a Director of Football who knows bugger all about football.

 

 

the same major shareholders as in 1992 ?

 

You are not seriously suggesting that Shepherd runs the club himself, and appoints the managers himself, without the major shareholders ?

 

I've said this before, and I'm still staggered that people appear to believe this is the case.

 

All the managers have been backed to the same degree by the same major shareholders too.

 

 

 

It seems pretty clear to me that the Halls are no longer interested in the day to day running of the club, and haven't been for some time. I'm sure that their approval is sought before a major decision like the appointing of a manager is made, but that's as far as it goes. Up until recently, they've been happy to hand the reins to Freddie.

 

I think they now realise that Freddie has been screwing up, and that there's a better alternative both for themselves and the club.

 

you "think" they realise Shepherd is screwing up ? Don't you know ? Or are you just guessing.

 

On the contrary, if THEY picked Souness, it is THEY who screwed up. And neither you, nor I, know. Do you ?

 

If I ran Newcastle United, and I was the major shareholder, one thing I would NOT do is allow someone else to run it for me, or make the single biggest appointment in the football club, if I thought they were screwing up, and as you suggest, they APPROVED of the managerial appointments, at the very least.

 

 

 

According to Sir Bob's book, in all his time at Newcastle, he only saw Douglas Hall 3 or 4 times. The guy lives in Gibraltar, and Sir John is retired. It's completely obvious that they're absentee owners. Neither of the Halls seem to be big football fans, and it suited them to take a back seat and let Freddie, who's the real enthusiast, run the show. Sir John doesn't want to take over again, and Douglas doesn't seem to have the ability.

 

I think the way the last two managers have been recruited reflects this arrangement. I think Freddie did all the sounding out and then presented his chosen candidate to the Halls for their approval. Even if they weren't convinced that Freddie had found the best possible man, if they say no they really have to go ahead and find a better man themselves, and they've got no inclination to get involved in that way. I don't think they're interested in much beyond the business side.

 

But personally - and this is where I differ from a few - I don't think the main problem has been the choice of manager. It's been the way the managers have been treated, and the position they're put in. Shepherd acts like a Director of Football, and the managers don't have the power and initiative that is needed, particularly in the transfer market.

 

sorry your last paragraph is dog pooh souness spent £50 million in the transfer market hardly lack of power.

[Baggio]

NE5 - Do you think the club is going backwards and other clubs are overtaking us?

 

A simple yes or no will do.

[OzzieMandias]

This is the same for EVERY club, Arsenal, Chelsea, ManU and Liverpool have all made bad choices too. I know you won't believe this, but its true.

 

Perhaps you can name the bad managerial choices any of these clubs have made in the last ten years.

 

Gullit...?

 

 

aye, Gullit. And Vialli too, where is he these days 

 

When did Liverpool appoint Roy Evans ? And just before Wenger, Arsenal appointed Rioch, who last a

year.

 

Roy Evans? 1994. More than ten years ago. Rioch? 1995. More than ten years ago.

 

Food for thought for mandiarse is that if Keegan had not left, then he could well still be here just as Wenger and Ferguson.

 

But here on planet Earth, Keegan did leave.

 

How many other clubs can you name that haven't made any shit appointments Ozzie ?

 

The discussion was about Liverpool, Man U, Arsenal and Chelsea, following on from your post that specifically cited those clubs. Stop trying to move the goalposts just because it's sunk in that you can't win that one.

 

Are you conceding that only 4 clubs have made less bad choices as manager than us ?

 

No, I was pointing out that clubs you mentioned in defence of Shepherd re. managerial appointments as "having made bad decisions" had, in the period of Shepherd's reign, made hardly any bad managerial decisions. Your pie-eating poster boy has, in fact, made more bad managerial appointments than all four of those clubs put together.

 

As i said, on planet earth...

 

Do let us know when you intend to arrive.

 

Unfortunately for you, the word "four" is significant, again. Because they are the only 4 clubs that you can name blah blah blah usual bullshit blah

 

 

No, you named them. I merely demonstrated how that defeated your own argument.

[NE5]

This is the same for EVERY club, Arsenal, Chelsea, ManU and Liverpool have all made bad choices too. I know you won't believe this, but its true.

 

Perhaps you can name the bad managerial choices any of these clubs have made in the last ten years.

 

Gullit...?

 

 

aye, Gullit. And Vialli too, where is he these days 

 

When did Liverpool appoint Roy Evans ? And just before Wenger, Arsenal appointed Rioch, who last a

year.

 

Roy Evans? 1994. More than ten years ago. Rioch? 1995. More than ten years ago.

 

Food for thought for mandiarse is that if Keegan had not left, then he could well still be here just as Wenger and Ferguson.

 

But here on planet Earth, Keegan did leave.

 

How many other clubs can you name that haven't made any shit appointments Ozzie ?

 

The discussion was about Liverpool, Man U, Arsenal and Chelsea, following on from your post that specifically cited those clubs. Stop trying to move the goalposts just because it's sunk in that you can't win that one.

 

Are you conceding that only 4 clubs have made less bad choices as manager than us ?

 

No, I was pointing out that clubs you mentioned in defence of Shepherd re. managerial appointments as "having made bad decisions" had, in the period of Shepherd's reign, made hardly any bad managerial decisions. Your pie-eating poster boy has, in fact, made more bad managerial appointments than all four of those clubs put together.

 

As i said, on planet earth...

 

Do let us know when you intend to arrive.

 

Unfortunately for you, the word "four" is significant, again. Because they are the only 4 clubs that you can name blah blah blah usual bullshit blah

 

 

No, you named them. I merely demonstrated how that defeated your own argument.

 

No, my arguement is that only 4 clubs have qualified more than us for europe, and I named them. Who else can you name ?

 

 

[OzzieMandias]

This is the same for EVERY club, Arsenal, Chelsea, ManU and Liverpool have all made bad choices too. I know you won't believe this, but its true.

 

Perhaps you can name the bad managerial choices any of these clubs have made in the last ten years.

 

Gullit...?

 

 

aye, Gullit. And Vialli too, where is he these days 

 

When did Liverpool appoint Roy Evans ? And just before Wenger, Arsenal appointed Rioch, who last a

year.

 

Roy Evans? 1994. More than ten years ago. Rioch? 1995. More than ten years ago.

 

Food for thought for mandiarse is that if Keegan had not left, then he could well still be here just as Wenger and Ferguson.

 

But here on planet Earth, Keegan did leave.

 

How many other clubs can you name that haven't made any shit appointments Ozzie ?

 

The discussion was about Liverpool, Man U, Arsenal and Chelsea, following on from your post that specifically cited those clubs. Stop trying to move the goalposts just because it's sunk in that you can't win that one.

 

Are you conceding that only 4 clubs have made less bad choices as manager than us ?

 

No, I was pointing out that clubs you mentioned in defence of Shepherd re. managerial appointments as "having made bad decisions" had, in the period of Shepherd's reign, made hardly any bad managerial decisions. Your pie-eating poster boy has, in fact, made more bad managerial appointments than all four of those clubs put together.

 

As i said, on planet earth...

 

Do let us know when you intend to arrive.

 

Unfortunately for you, the word "four" is significant, again. Because they are the only 4 clubs that you can name blah blah blah usual bullshit blah

 

 

No, you named them. I merely demonstrated how that defeated your own argument.

 

No, my arguement is that only 4 clubs have qualified more than us for europe, and I named them. Who else can you name ?

 

 

You seem to have the memory of a goldfish.

 

Your argument was this:

 

This is the same for EVERY club, Arsenal, Chelsea, ManU and Liverpool have all made bad choices too. I know you won't believe this, but its true.

 

To which I pointed out that in the period that Shepherd has been making the decisions, he has made more bad choices than those four clubs put together.

[NE5]

This is the same for EVERY club, Arsenal, Chelsea, ManU and Liverpool have all made bad choices too. I know you won't believe this, but its true.

 

Perhaps you can name the bad managerial choices any of these clubs have made in the last ten years.

 

Gullit...?

 

 

aye, Gullit. And Vialli too, where is he these days 

 

When did Liverpool appoint Roy Evans ? And just before Wenger, Arsenal appointed Rioch, who last a

year.

 

Roy Evans? 1994. More than ten years ago. Rioch? 1995. More than ten years ago.

 

Food for thought for mandiarse is that if Keegan had not left, then he could well still be here just as Wenger and Ferguson.

 

But here on planet Earth, Keegan did leave.

 

How many other clubs can you name that haven't made any shit appointments Ozzie ?

 

The discussion was about Liverpool, Man U, Arsenal and Chelsea, following on from your post that specifically cited those clubs. Stop trying to move the goalposts just because it's sunk in that you can't win that one.

 

Are you conceding that only 4 clubs have made less bad choices as manager than us ?

 

No, I was pointing out that clubs you mentioned in defence of Shepherd re. managerial appointments as "having made bad decisions" had, in the period of Shepherd's reign, made hardly any bad managerial decisions. Your pie-eating poster boy has, in fact, made more bad managerial appointments than all four of those clubs put together.

 

As i said, on planet earth...

 

Do let us know when you intend to arrive.

 

Unfortunately for you, the word "four" is significant, again. Because they are the only 4 clubs that you can name blah blah blah usual bullshit blah

 

 

No, you named them. I merely demonstrated how that defeated your own argument.

 

No, my arguement is that only 4 clubs have qualified more than us for europe, and I named them. Who else can you name ?

 

 

You seem to have the memory of a goldfish.

 

Your argument was this:

 

This is the same for EVERY club, Arsenal, Chelsea, ManU and Liverpool have all made bad choices too. I know you won't believe this, but its true.

 

To which I pointed out that in the period that Shepherd has been making the decisions, he has made more bad choices than those four clubs put together.

 

two of them have not made a decision at all.

 

Not bad is it when you have made better decisions than 88 other clubs, as you clearly can't name any more than those 4.

 

Incidentally, 4 is twice the amount of goals your hero scored in his last season at SJP. Not very many is it ?

 

 

 

 

[macbeth]

For the last few years the board has been mad eup of ouglas HAll and his sister Alison, Freddie Shepherd and his brother Bruce, and the independent tax accountat Tim Revill who is based in Gibraltar. I feel it is a pointleses exercie to try and attribute blame across any particualr individual as the board as a whole runs the club. The popel to blamd are two members of the Hall family an dtwo memebers of the Shepherd family. To exclude anyone, in particular, or to blame any indidvidual in particular is silly. Collectively they are all equally talented.

[OzzieMandias]

This is the same for EVERY club, Arsenal, Chelsea, ManU and Liverpool have all made bad choices too. I know you won't believe this, but its true.

 

Perhaps you can name the bad managerial choices any of these clubs have made in the last ten years.

 

Gullit...?

 

 

aye, Gullit. And Vialli too, where is he these days 

 

When did Liverpool appoint Roy Evans ? And just before Wenger, Arsenal appointed Rioch, who last a

year.

 

Roy Evans? 1994. More than ten years ago. Rioch? 1995. More than ten years ago.

 

Food for thought for mandiarse is that if Keegan had not left, then he could well still be here just as Wenger and Ferguson.

 

But here on planet Earth, Keegan did leave.

 

How many other clubs can you name that haven't made any shit appointments Ozzie ?

 

The discussion was about Liverpool, Man U, Arsenal and Chelsea, following on from your post that specifically cited those clubs. Stop trying to move the goalposts just because it's sunk in that you can't win that one.

 

Are you conceding that only 4 clubs have made less bad choices as manager than us ?

 

No, I was pointing out that clubs you mentioned in defence of Shepherd re. managerial appointments as "having made bad decisions" had, in the period of Shepherd's reign, made hardly any bad managerial decisions. Your pie-eating poster boy has, in fact, made more bad managerial appointments than all four of those clubs put together.

 

As i said, on planet earth...

 

Do let us know when you intend to arrive.

 

Unfortunately for you, the word "four" is significant, again. Because they are the only 4 clubs that you can name blah blah blah usual bullshit blah

 

 

No, you named them. I merely demonstrated how that defeated your own argument.

 

No, my arguement is that only 4 clubs have qualified more than us for europe, and I named them. Who else can you name ?

 

 

You seem to have the memory of a goldfish.

 

Your argument was this:

 

This is the same for EVERY club, Arsenal, Chelsea, ManU and Liverpool have all made bad choices too. I know you won't believe this, but its true.

 

To which I pointed out that in the period that Shepherd has been making the decisions, he has made more bad choices than those four clubs put together.

 

two of them have not made a decision at all.

 

 

 

No need. They had chairmen intelligent enough to get it right and who then backed their managers.

[Cronky]

For the last few years the board has been mad eup of ouglas HAll and his sister Alison, Freddie Shepherd and his brother Bruce, and the independent tax accountat Tim Revill who is based in Gibraltar. I feel it is a pointleses exercie to try and attribute blame across any particualr individual as the board as a whole runs the club. The popel to blamd are two members of the Hall family an dtwo memebers of the Shepherd family. To exclude anyone, in particular, or to blame any indidvidual in particular is silly. Collectively they are all equally talented.

 

If you're talking about blame, then the people who have decided to allow Freddie to run the club are just as guilty as Freddie himself.

 

The point though is that the various Board members do not, in practice, participate in the running of the club in an equal manner (albeit by their own choice in the case of the Halls). Major decisions are run by them for their approval, but their role seems to be limited to saying yes or no, rather than actively shaping the decision itself.

 

Now my point is that this way of running the club is becoming less and less satisfactory from the club's point of view, and the Halls have realised this. Trouble is, Freddie quite likes it the way it is, and won't go quietly.

[NE5]

This is the same for EVERY club, Arsenal, Chelsea, ManU and Liverpool have all made bad choices too. I know you won't believe this, but its true.

 

Perhaps you can name the bad managerial choices any of these clubs have made in the last ten years.

 

Gullit...?

 

 

aye, Gullit. And Vialli too, where is he these days 

 

When did Liverpool appoint Roy Evans ? And just before Wenger, Arsenal appointed Rioch, who last a

year.

 

Roy Evans? 1994. More than ten years ago. Rioch? 1995. More than ten years ago.

 

Food for thought for mandiarse is that if Keegan had not left, then he could well still be here just as Wenger and Ferguson.

 

But here on planet Earth, Keegan did leave.

 

How many other clubs can you name that haven't made any shit appointments Ozzie ?

 

The discussion was about Liverpool, Man U, Arsenal and Chelsea, following on from your post that specifically cited those clubs. Stop trying to move the goalposts just because it's sunk in that you can't win that one.

 

Are you conceding that only 4 clubs have made less bad choices as manager than us ?

 

No, I was pointing out that clubs you mentioned in defence of Shepherd re. managerial appointments as "having made bad decisions" had, in the period of Shepherd's reign, made hardly any bad managerial decisions. Your pie-eating poster boy has, in fact, made more bad managerial appointments than all four of those clubs put together.

 

As i said, on planet earth...

 

Do let us know when you intend to arrive.

 

Unfortunately for you, the word "four" is significant, again. Because they are the only 4 clubs that you can name blah blah blah usual bullshit blah

 

 

No, you named them. I merely demonstrated how that defeated your own argument.

 

No, my arguement is that only 4 clubs have qualified more than us for europe, and I named them. Who else can you name ?

 

 

You seem to have the memory of a goldfish.

 

Your argument was this:

 

This is the same for EVERY club, Arsenal, Chelsea, ManU and Liverpool have all made bad choices too. I know you won't believe this, but its true.

 

To which I pointed out that in the period that Shepherd has been making the decisions, he has made more bad choices than those four clubs put together.

 

two of them have not made a decision at all.

 

 

 

No need. They had chairmen intelligent enough to get it right and who then backed their managers.

 

only 2 though ?

 

The other 89 clubs should all follow their outstanding example and make long term appointments that all work out so everybody wins trophies galore.