The right man is now available Freddy, what do you do?

[Guest Gemmill]

 

i'm aware of their records. You wasted your time typing all of that.

 

Roeder was on a bit of a loser at Watford, they were already going downwards, and he didn't get much support, some Watford fans reckon he was unlucky. I don't really care what West ham fans think, they are all tossers anyway.

 

Having appointed managers with track winning records who didn't deliver, what makes you think that managers with not so good records woudl repeat their previous experiences too ? ....... just a point you should think about. All I said is that Roeder had merit, he might have succeeded. Different cirumstances, different clubs, you can't tell. Its obvious now that he isn't going to do it, but he could have been the right man in the right job at the right time.

My earlier point about other clubs doing these things stands. They do. I know you didn't say it but you and others imply such things. I'm just putting the record straight on this one. Which I see you don't dispute. Unless you are going to suggest that everybody else always makes the right appointment, at the right time and/or because all these other clubs bar us have DOF's and CEO's or whatever.

 

 

 

 

 

How far will you go to defend Shepherd?

 

He appointed managers who had won things and it didn't work so he thought he'd appoint s**** as that might work.

 

bluelaugh.gif bluelaugh.gif

 

That really is one of the best laughs I've had in ages, thanks.

 

 

on the contrary, what is most laughable is people - like you - who think anything other than anti Shepherd/board comments is "defending them". I'm not defending anybody. I'm just looking at both sides of the coin, and trying to be balanced about it. Other clubs have made far worse appointments, and whats more you know it. Unless you are foolish enough to think that every club should appoint managers who are successful.  mackems.gif  I expect you will say next that when I say that only 4 clubs have qualified for europe more than us in the past decade, and we finished in the top 5 for 3 consecutive years for the first time in half a century to be "defending the board" ?

 

BTW, your comment isn't what I said at all....not that I expected people like you to misinterpret it or be daft enough not to understand

 

 

 

I don't claim to give a balanced view of Shepherd, that's not possible when his record of under-achievement is so one sided.  You don't give a balanced view as you see no wrong in him, you even excuse his last two appointments, it's laughable.

 

having spent the time I did on here saying how I wished he [souness] had never got anywhere near the place and Craig Bellamy had hit him over the head with a rusty pickaxe for assaulting him on the training ground, the only laughable remark is what you have just said above.

 

 

 

You also said you thought Souness was a top boss on another forum though tbf.  Hindsight.

 

oh dear.

 

We have said this before Gemma baby, your chums on toontastic have been up to their tricks editing peoples posts again, like they have done before, like they did when they did to other people, including changing their avatars, posting personal information, and peoples photographs. And whats more, you know this to be true.

 

Quite amazing you are stupid enough to think that one single post among hundreds saying the complete opposite is genuine, but then again, you are stupid, because you backed Souness from day one until the day he left. Even financially, being an accountant that obviously knows your trade.

 

And whats more, you STILL do, because you STILL think we are better off for selling Craig Bellamy and replacing him with Luque, don't you ?

 

 

 

Nobody edited your post.  You said Souness was a "top boss".  Honestly, I would have more time for you if you just admitted it instead of blaming other people for supposedly altering what you'd written.  You'll note that I'm not trying to claim that anyone edited any of mine.

 

I'm not arsed Gemma. I'm also not arsed if your chums on toontastic "have more time for me" either. I've said my piece. One post in hundreds which doesn't slate the scottish fuckpig as being the utter arsewipe he is, and you believe it, while being aware that your chums have a history of editing posts, posting personal information and posting peoples photographs.

 

Says everything really, as does your backing of Souness from start to finish.

 

 

 

I think deep down, you know you posted it.  That's why you react so aggressively when someone points it out, and why you'll no longer show your face on Toontastic.

[NE5]

 

i'm aware of their records. You wasted your time typing all of that.

 

Roeder was on a bit of a loser at Watford, they were already going downwards, and he didn't get much support, some Watford fans reckon he was unlucky. I don't really care what West ham fans think, they are all tossers anyway.

 

Having appointed managers with track winning records who didn't deliver, what makes you think that managers with not so good records woudl repeat their previous experiences too ? ....... just a point you should think about. All I said is that Roeder had merit, he might have succeeded. Different cirumstances, different clubs, you can't tell. Its obvious now that he isn't going to do it, but he could have been the right man in the right job at the right time.

My earlier point about other clubs doing these things stands. They do. I know you didn't say it but you and others imply such things. I'm just putting the record straight on this one. Which I see you don't dispute. Unless you are going to suggest that everybody else always makes the right appointment, at the right time and/or because all these other clubs bar us have DOF's and CEO's or whatever.

 

 

 

 

 

How far will you go to defend Shepherd?

 

He appointed managers who had won things and it didn't work so he thought he'd appoint s**** as that might work.

 

bluelaugh.gif bluelaugh.gif

 

That really is one of the best laughs I've had in ages, thanks.

 

 

on the contrary, what is most laughable is people - like you - who think anything other than anti Shepherd/board comments is "defending them". I'm not defending anybody. I'm just looking at both sides of the coin, and trying to be balanced about it. Other clubs have made far worse appointments, and whats more you know it. Unless you are foolish enough to think that every club should appoint managers who are successful.  mackems.gif  I expect you will say next that when I say that only 4 clubs have qualified for europe more than us in the past decade, and we finished in the top 5 for 3 consecutive years for the first time in half a century to be "defending the board" ?

 

BTW, your comment isn't what I said at all....not that I expected people like you to misinterpret it or be daft enough not to understand

 

 

 

I don't claim to give a balanced view of Shepherd, that's not possible when his record of under-achievement is so one sided.  You don't give a balanced view as you see no wrong in him, you even excuse his last two appointments, it's laughable.

 

having spent the time I did on here saying how I wished he [souness] had never got anywhere near the place and Craig Bellamy had hit him over the head with a rusty pickaxe for assaulting him on the training ground, the only laughable remark is what you have just said above.

 

 

 

You also said you thought Souness was a top boss on another forum though tbf.  Hindsight.

 

oh dear.

 

We have said this before Gemma baby, your chums on toontastic have been up to their tricks editing peoples posts again, like they have done before, like they did when they did to other people, including changing their avatars, posting personal information, and peoples photographs. And whats more, you know this to be true.

 

Quite amazing you are stupid enough to think that one single post among hundreds saying the complete opposite is genuine, but then again, you are stupid, because you backed Souness from day one until the day he left. Even financially, being an accountant that obviously knows your trade.

 

And whats more, you STILL do, because you STILL think we are better off for selling Craig Bellamy and replacing him with Luque, don't you ?

 

 

 

Nobody edited your post.  You said Souness was a "top boss".  Honestly, I would have more time for you if you just admitted it instead of blaming other people for supposedly altering what you'd written.  You'll note that I'm not trying to claim that anyone edited any of mine.

 

I'm not arsed Gemma. I'm also not arsed if your chums on toontastic "have more time for me" either. I've said my piece. One post in hundreds which doesn't slate the scottish fuckpig as being the utter arsewipe he is, and you believe it, while being aware that your chums have a history of editing posts, posting personal information and posting peoples photographs.

 

Says everything really, as does your backing of Souness from start to finish.

 

 

 

I think deep down, you know you posted it.  That's why you react so aggressively when someone points it out, and why you'll no longer show your face on Toontastic.

 

you are absolutely wrong.

 

Your chums have no integrity. I was banned on toonchat - for comments made in a different forum - at about the time of that post, but nobody admitted they had banned me. Just like now, nobody will admit to editing posts.

 

Stevieh84, HTL and Swindonmag [at least] have also had posts edited, avatars messed with, photos of them posted, and showed someone up [i don't know who and I'm not bothered either] to be childish and stupid, by such actions. I am not "showing my face" on toontastic basically for this, and the fact that the vast majority of you talk a load of bollocks.

 

If I had posted them, I would admit it - even if it was a wind up - and if I am ever wrong about something, however rare, I would admit that too.

 

I don't intend to respond again, unless it is relevant to this thread or my comments to Mick.

 

 

[Baggio]

Thanks for confirming you are Leazes Mag, NE5.

[Rob W]

ladies!

 

Please............................  children may be listening.................

[NE5]

Thanks for confirming you are Leazes Mag, NE5.

 

Well, in view of the post in question, maybe it was Gemmill ?

 

[Guest Gemmill]

You're giving me the last word then?  Excellent, I'll use it to say that you know as well as I do that you posted that whilst Kevin Keegan had gone backwards since leaving us, Graeme Souness had turned himself into a "top boss" who was here to solve our problems.

 

You sharp changed your tune though and have since vilified anyone who ever had a good word to say about Souness, claiming that you were against him from the off.  So your current claims that your post must have been edited are understandable given the stance that you've adopted since you made it, but the fact is that they weren't edited and that you remain a hypocrite.

 

Now remember you promised not to reply.

[Baggio]

And about you moaning about being banned from Toochat, and that nobody would admit to it...

 

http://z7.invisionfree.com/toonchat/index.php?showtopic=733

 

 

[Nobby]

I do believe he tried to get that man - MON - but the Irishman turned us down/played us well and didn't get it, meaning we either way weren't going to get the right man.

 

he wanted to sign for us but turned us down because Shepherd wouldn't let him change all the ackroom staff

[Scottish Mag]

What I don't understand is that Leazes/NE5/Beermonster stopped posting on Toontastic because of something 2 members who also post on here posted yet continues to post on here?

 

I have not had run ins with yourself Leazes but you have stopped posting the minute Baggio and Wullie dug up those posts.  And as stated on many occasions there was never any records of your posts being edited on ToonChat either..

[NE5]

What I don't understand is that Leazes/NE5/Beermonster stopped posting on Toontastic because of something 2 members who also post on here posted yet continues to post on here?

 

I have not had run ins with yourself Leazes but you have stopped posting the minute Baggio and Wullie dug up those posts.  And as stated on many occasions there was never any records of your posts being edited on ToonChat either..

 

Well SM, I have explained the situation above.

 

And I have not posted as anyone called beermonster. Neither have I posted as Leazesmag on this message board.

 

There was no record of me being banned on toonchat when I asked chayton, but I was. And you don't know this, so stop saying that I wasn't. Because I was.

 

I think it is quite surprising that people are harping on about others being childish etc etc because I am struggling to think of anything more childish than people looking for others' old posts, having nothing else to do with their time. Now, IMO, that is as sad as anyone could be.

 

Now. Some of us have better things to do with their life.

 

 

[Scottish Mag]

I am not sure if the childish remark is aimed at me but I fail to see what I posted there that was.

 

Also in reply to the statement that I should stop saying you weren't banned have a look at what I posted, I never said you weren't I passed comment on the editing of posts...

[Northern Monkey]

To get back to the heart of the thread - the right man isn't avaliable, but a BETTER man is.

 

Oh, and Graeme Souness sucked cock. For baccy.

[Cajun]

Is that you admitting it was your old post?

[Scottish Mag]

To get back to the heart of the thread - the right man isn't avaliable, but a BETTER man is.

 

Oh, and Graeme Souness sucked cock. For baccy.

 

Roeders just the lesser of two evils.

 

Souness may have sucked cock but Roeder blows goats..

[NE5]

I am not sure if the childish remark is aimed at me but I fail to see what I posted there that was.

 

Also in reply to the statement that I should stop saying you weren't banned have a look at what I posted, I never said you weren't I passed comment on the editing of posts...

 

no, it is not aimed at you. It is aimed at the clueless, and very sad wullie, who appears to have been the one that had nothing else to do, and to a lesser extent baggio for supporting him, because although he talks bollocks when he spouts his DOF stuff he can back it up with some facts. It is just that I disagree. And I can also back it up with examples.

 

I am aware you didn't claim to be saying that I was banned, so apologies for that, but I am making the point that I actually was banned - for comments made on another message board - and somebody knows that it is true, that person being the one who banned me. I would guess it may be the same person who edited the post, who knows, and actually, who cares. Such daft things are just the actions of tossers mate.

 

 

[Northern Monkey]

Is that you admitting it was your old post?

 

I'll admit to owt me, doesn't make it true. Like those nerds at the end of Dead Poet's Society, only less gay. And not standing on a desk. And not a boarding school hom.

[Guest Gemmill]

Is that you admitting it was your old post?

 

I'll admit to owt me, doesn't make it true. Like those nerds at the end of Dead Poet's Society, only less gay. And not standing on a desk. And not a boarding school hom.

 

O captain, my captain!

[Rob W]

It's threads like this, full of idiotic  &  useless arguing that make you want to give up the Internet

[Cajun]

I am not sure if the childish remark is aimed at me but I fail to see what I posted there that was.

 

Also in reply to the statement that I should stop saying you weren't banned have a look at what I posted, I never said you weren't I passed comment on the editing of posts...

 

no, it is not aimed at you. It is aimed at the clueless, and very sad wullie, who appears to have been the one that had nothing else to do, and to a lesser extent baggio for supporting him, because although he talks bollocks when he spouts his DOF stuff he can back it up with some facts. It is just that I disagree. And I can also back it up with examples.

 

I am aware you didn't claim to be saying that I was banned, so apologies for that, but I am making the point that I actually was banned - for comments made on another message board - and somebody knows that it is true, that person being the one who banned me. I would guess it may be the same person who edited the post, who knows, and actually, who cares. Such daft things are just the actions of tossers mate.

 

 

 

Out of interest how long ago was this banning?

 

Also if the post was edited then surely someone would have noticed it before, maybe even at the time or did someone wait a few months, edit it then hope someone would check randomly some time in the next year or so and bring it back up again? All seems a bit too much like grasping at straws to me.

[Northern Monkey]

Is that you admitting it was your old post?

 

I'll admit to owt me, doesn't make it true. Like those nerds at the end of Dead Poet's Society, only less gay. And not standing on a desk. And not a boarding school hom.

 

O captain, my captain!

 

Thats the nerds! God bless them, and their sentimental claptrap. Next time round that campfire, you KNOW the boarding school freaks would have been "experimenting" with each other cocks, not poetry.....

[NE5]

Is that you admitting it was your old post?

 

I'll admit to owt me, doesn't make it true. Like those nerds at the end of Dead Poet's Society, only less gay. And not standing on a desk. And not a boarding school hom.

 

brilliant film. Wonder if those kids at the end were Jon or Gemmill though. Or wullie  mackems.gif

[Cajun]

No it was definitely me.

[Guest Gemmill]

It's threads like this, full of idiotic  &  useless arguing that make you want to give up the Internet

 

O Captain, my Captain!

[NE5]

I am not sure if the childish remark is aimed at me but I fail to see what I posted there that was.

 

Also in reply to the statement that I should stop saying you weren't banned have a look at what I posted, I never said you weren't I passed comment on the editing of posts...

 

no, it is not aimed at you. It is aimed at the clueless, and very sad wullie, who appears to have been the one that had nothing else to do, and to a lesser extent baggio for supporting him, because although he talks bollocks when he spouts his DOF stuff he can back it up with some facts. It is just that I disagree. And I can also back it up with examples.

 

I am aware you didn't claim to be saying that I was banned, so apologies for that, but I am making the point that I actually was banned - for comments made on another message board - and somebody knows that it is true, that person being the one who banned me. I would guess it may be the same person who edited the post, who knows, and actually, who cares. Such daft things are just the actions of tossers mate.

 

 

 

Out of interest how long ago was this banning?

 

Also if the post was edited then surely someone would have noticed it before, maybe even at the time or did someone wait a few months, edit it then hope someone would check randomly some time in the next year or so and bring it back up again? All seems a bit too much like grasping at straws to me.

 

Surprisingly - possibly - for you, close to the mark. I can't see the poster leaving it if he had been aware of it can you ?

 

This point has been made previously btw

 

HTL, swindonmag and stevieh84 - at least - will confirm that someone on toontastic has a history of this sort of thing.

 

Whatever.

 

 

[NE5]

 

I have.

 

And the saddest thing of all, is someone who denies they are fact.

 

 

 

I would agree denying them would be sad, who did that?

 

you did. You say the current board are "no different".

 

Anyone can see the huge difference in performance of the club if you look and compare the positions.

 

See this.

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=38878.msg794632#msg794632

 

The surprise is that macbeth didnt' reply to this post. The points are fairly straightforward. Before you start harping on about "defending" anyone, please tell is if this comment taken from teh above post is fact or not.

 

Do you also think the board are "collectively responsible" for rescuing the club from certain relegation to the old 3rd division, 15000 crowds, selling their best players, being unable to raise money from a share issue even to the amount that we sold Peter Beardsley to Liverpool for, playing in the Champions League, achieving 3 consecutive top 5 league positions for the first time in over 50 years, building a new training facility that previous boards had failed to achieve for almost a century, and expanding and developing the stadium which all the previous boards had also failed to do ?

 

If you dispute these facts, thus concluding the current board is the same as the old board, please tell us which part of the above is incorrect, thus leading to you making your "opinion".

 

You never know, macbeth may turn up, as he's already ignored it.

 

 

 

bump.

 

Back on the thread.