manc-mag

good edit. Jesus wept.

Christ I could cry right now.

the embarrassment are those who insisted that anybody but Fred would do better than qualifying for europe regularly, filling an expanded stadium every home game, signing the players who were responsible for the higher playing standards to enable all of this etc etc etc And still don't see that they were wrong, very wrong. For the record, and I don't know how many times I have to say this, it is embarrassing how many times I have to tell you. From 1992 until 2007 the Halls and Shepherd ran the club, combined they had the majority shareholding, all the decisions good and bad were taken by the majority shareholders, none of them could do anything without the approval of the other ? Sir John Hall has said that "we" appointed managers. Dogless has said that "we" decided Bobby Robson had to go. I thought you were a solicitor ? Aren't you supposed to be intelligent ? Dear fuck. I hoped this particular angle of comment would be well over and accepted by people by now. ASM's post immediately above this one (post no.27) correctly explains the position. Unfortunately for you, you're talking complete shit. The whole point is that in appointing Shepherd as chairman, that's one of the fundamental roles he assumes responsibility for. That's what chairmen do. If it wasn't the case, why bother having a Chairman? Why would SJH bother standing down as Chairman? The shareholders give this function to the Chairman who then takes those decisions on their behalf. If he makes the wrong decisions they can chose to terminate his service contract. If the Chairman decides to listen to shareholders/follow the views of shareholders/not take issue with bad recommendations of shareholders (howsoever you want to phrase it) then it's still his fucking fault when those decisions blow up in his face. He's employed to run a football club. I see you chose not to answer the question I posed at the top of the page because that asks the question technically and you clearly didn't understand what I was talking about. Yes I'm a solicitor and I'm fairly confident I've got a better grasp of company law than you have. I refer you to the comments as made by Sir John Hall and Dogless, where they have referred on many occasions as "we". Only an idiot would give one single person, and a minority shareholder at that, totall control of a business worth in excess of 100 million quid. Do you think Sir John Hall is an idiot ? Continue beating Shepherd with any stick you can find. I hope your judgement of situations as a solicitor is better than your reading of an obvious situation at the football club. I understand perfectly well what your point is. You are back to spouting total bollocks, based on personal agenda. I hope you are looking forward to someone matching the achievements of the Halls and Shepherd, which may or may not be a long time. Who knows, it certainly won't be during the ownership of Mike Ashley, thats certain. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS HE HAD TOTAL CONTROL IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN. I can't make you understand this because you don't understand the basic rudiments of company law. In most companies the chairman doesn't even have a vote, unless the vote is tied. I think it'd have been better if you'd just avoided this thread Parky. Dear me. What do you suppose the Chairman does do dare I even ask?

the embarrassment are those who insisted that anybody but Fred would do better than qualifying for europe regularly, filling an expanded stadium every home game, signing the players who were responsible for the higher playing standards to enable all of this etc etc etc And still don't see that they were wrong, very wrong. For the record, and I don't know how many times I have to say this, it is embarrassing how many times I have to tell you. From 1992 until 2007 the Halls and Shepherd ran the club, combined they had the majority shareholding, all the decisions good and bad were taken by the majority shareholders, none of them could do anything without the approval of the other ? Sir John Hall has said that "we" appointed managers. Dogless has said that "we" decided Bobby Robson had to go. I thought you were a solicitor ? Aren't you supposed to be intelligent ? Dear fuck. I hoped this particular angle of comment would be well over and accepted by people by now. He's right the big descisions would have have been taken by the board as a whole. The board. Not the fucking shareholders. Jesus. I realise they're both the same in some cases, but Leazes is premising this on a majority vote system where it's decided entirely by shareholder voting. The point is, if Freddie as chairman disagreed with the views of other board members then he could have fucking well had the strength to say so. As Chairman. He could even have resigned. As Chairman. It would have been entirely separate to his shareholding. I know fine well what will have gone on behind the scenes de facto but it doesnt in the slightest absolve him of his appointments as chairman. It's an absolute nothing point that Leazes thinks somehow changes everything. What Shepherd is not is some sort of shrinking violet. If he took decisions as chairman then it's because he thought they were the right decisions. If they weren't, he wouldnt. Has he ever come out and said he was forced into an appointment against his better judgment? The point Leazes is trying to make, literally doesnt matter a monkey's fucking toss for any number of reasons.

It barely even matters anyway. Aside from the technical points which you fail to understand, even if we were de facto being governed by committee, it only means there were more of them making bad decisions than just one. Jesus wept.

the embarrassment are those who insisted that anybody but Fred would do better than qualifying for europe regularly, filling an expanded stadium every home game, signing the players who were responsible for the higher playing standards to enable all of this etc etc etc And still don't see that they were wrong, very wrong. For the record, and I don't know how many times I have to say this, it is embarrassing how many times I have to tell you. From 1992 until 2007 the Halls and Shepherd ran the club, combined they had the majority shareholding, all the decisions good and bad were taken by the majority shareholders, none of them could do anything without the approval of the other ? Sir John Hall has said that "we" appointed managers. Dogless has said that "we" decided Bobby Robson had to go. I thought you were a solicitor ? Aren't you supposed to be intelligent ? Dear fuck. I hoped this particular angle of comment would be well over and accepted by people by now. ASM's post immediately above this one (post no.27) correctly explains the position. Unfortunately for you, you're talking complete shit. The whole point is that in appointing Shepherd as chairman, that's one of the fundamental roles he assumes responsibility for. That's what chairmen do. If it wasn't the case, why bother having a Chairman? Why would SJH bother standing down as Chairman? The shareholders give this function to the Chairman who then takes those decisions on their behalf. If he makes the wrong decisions they can chose to terminate his service contract. If the Chairman decides to listen to shareholders/follow the views of shareholders/not take issue with bad recommendations of shareholders (howsoever you want to phrase it) then it's still his fucking fault when those decisions blow up in his face. He's employed to run a football club. I see you chose not to answer the question I posed at the top of the page because that asks the question technically and you clearly didn't understand what I was talking about. Yes I'm a solicitor and I'm fairly confident I've got a better grasp of company law than you have. I refer you to the comments as made by Sir John Hall and Dogless, where they have referred on many occasions as "we". Only an idiot would give one single person, and a minority shareholder at that, totall control of a business worth in excess of 100 million quid. Do you think Sir John Hall is an idiot ? Continue beating Shepherd with any stick you can find. I hope your judgement of situations as a solicitor is better than your reading of an obvious situation at the football club. I understand perfectly well what your point is. You are back to spouting total bollocks, based on personal agenda. I hope you are looking forward to someone matching the achievements of the Halls and Shepherd, which may or may not be a long time. Who knows, it certainly won't be during the ownership of Mike Ashley, thats certain. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS HE HAD TOTAL CONTROL IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN. I can't make you understand this because you don't understand the basic rudiments of company law.

the embarrassment are those who insisted that anybody but Fred would do better than qualifying for europe regularly, filling an expanded stadium every home game, signing the players who were responsible for the higher playing standards to enable all of this etc etc etc And still don't see that they were wrong, very wrong. For the record, and I don't know how many times I have to say this, it is embarrassing how many times I have to tell you. From 1992 until 2007 the Halls and Shepherd ran the club, combined they had the majority shareholding, all the decisions good and bad were taken by the majority shareholders, none of them could do anything without the approval of the other ? Sir John Hall has said that "we" appointed managers. Dogless has said that "we" decided Bobby Robson had to go. I thought you were a solicitor ? Aren't you supposed to be intelligent ? Dear fuck. I hoped this particular angle of comment would be well over and accepted by people by now. ASM's post immediately above this one (post no.27) correctly explains the position. Unfortunately for you, you're talking complete shit. The whole point is that in appointing Shepherd as chairman, that's one of the fundamental roles he assumes responsibility for. That's what chairmen do. If it wasn't the case, why bother having a Chairman? Why would SJH bother standing down as Chairman? The shareholders give this function to the Chairman who then takes those decisions on their behalf. If he makes the wrong decisions they can chose to terminate his service contract. If the Chairman decides to listen to shareholders/follow the views of shareholders/not take issue with bad recommendations of shareholders (howsoever you want to phrase it) then it's still his fucking fault when those decisions blow up in his face. He's employed to run a football club. I see you chose not to answer the question I posed at the top of the page because that asks the question technically and you clearly didn't understand what I was talking about. Yes I'm a solicitor and I'm fairly confident I've got a better grasp of company law than you have.

I jest, but that is literally how Leazes' mind works and how bad his grasp of logic is. I know he's pissed tonight but this and latterly the Chris Hughton thread are an utter embarrasment of posting.

interesting to hear Sir John Hall talking on TV about the appointments "we" made who spout off on television these days. Wonder who he is talking about ? How many hundreds of times does this need to be said. SHEPHERD WAS NEVER THE MAJORITY SHAREHOLDER AND COULD NOT HAVE MADE ANY APPOINTMENTS WITHOUT AGREEMENT AND CONSULATION WITH THE MAJORITY SHAREHOLDERS. This has been confirmed by Dogless who issued a press statement at the time saying that "we" thought Bobby Robson has lost the plot etc etc [word to that effect]. People will never make good judgements while they let personal feelings, or listen to total crap spouted in CIU clubs etc no nowts to influence their judgements. Dear fuckin Christ. ...... no wonder people laugh at us. Does this mean Fatty One should get none of the plaudits of that regime? No. In the case of any good decisions taken he will not have required the approval of the other members and can therefore receive full credit.

I note your edit and I respond simply by saying I've never said anything of the sort and (as usual) you're fictionalising peoples arguments again. Sigh.

You never know what to believe anymore but suffice to say if any of that is true, it doesn't amount to a plan at all. It's just a case of sack someone one day and see who else is interested the next. is this "planning" bollocks rearing its ugly head again ? Simple fact is, you need to pay the going rate and try to get the right guy. The "timing" and "planning" are completely irrelevant if you have the right person and the right backing. I'm not surprised in the slightest that people are turning down Mike Ashley and his derisory offers, when his ambitions for the football club are put to them. I realise the accountants will be pleased though. On the other hand, if good terms are offered to a half decent manager, like Jol, it reinforces a possibility that the club may be about to be sold. In my opinion. Yes it's generally good to plan these things. Unless you're in absolute dire straights and a change is forced upon you by circumstances. Which wasn't the case here. Not a radical statement by any means and certainly far from bollocks as you insist. Please can you attend to my question in the other thread by the way? I'm only just in, and catching up. Show me what you refer to, I might respond tomorrow. I don't agree with "planning". Football is reactionary and circumstances can and do change in a matter of weeks, as you say. Its a results dominated business where only a handful of clubs are deemed to be "successful". Everything is great if you win 3 games and everything is the opposite if you lose 3 games. You have just witnessed such a scenario at NUFC and it happens everywhere, so I don't see why you can possibly disagree. The point you make is largely nonsensical and the examples you use to back it couldnt be less relevant to the current scenario (where despite being in a bad spell, 95% of people polled have said they disagree with the sacking of Hughton. The other thread that I'm referring to is the Shepherd thread, where you've introduced a new argument tonight that you claim is of absolutely crucial significance and something you've been arguing since time immemorial. The only slight problem's are i) it's untrue and ii) it's completely defective. Tomorrow's not going to change that btw.

ffs

You never know what to believe anymore but suffice to say if any of that is true, it doesn't amount to a plan at all. It's just a case of sack someone one day and see who else is interested the next. is this "planning" bollocks rearing its ugly head again ? Simple fact is, you need to pay the going rate and try to get the right guy. The "timing" and "planning" are completely irrelevant if you have the right person and the right backing. I'm not surprised in the slightest that people are turning down Mike Ashley and his derisory offers, when his ambitions for the football club are put to them. I realise the accountants will be pleased though. On the other hand, if good terms are offered to a half decent manager, like Jol, it reinforces a possibility that the club may be about to be sold. In my opinion. Yes it's generally good to plan these things. Unless you're in absolute dire straights and a change is forced upon you by circumstances. Which wasn't the case here. Not a radical statement by any means and certainly far from bollocks as you insist. Please can you attend to my question in the other thread by the way?

Again you wait and see I suppose (and you wonder if the list of 'interviewees' will ever be publicised) but you can already see the spin in the event it's not a top name that gets it. Ie we approached (insert top name) but they weren't 'brave enough to take it on'.

Leazes?

As an aside I don't know why it keeps banging on about compensation clauses in a fixed term contract. You don't need a fucking compensation clause if you're going to end up getting sacked before the contract is expired anyway, you're entitled to the remainder as of right.

You never know what to believe anymore but suffice to say if any of that is true, it doesn't amount to a plan at all. It's just a case of sack someone one day and see who else is interested the next.

Interesting change of tack tonight there Leazes. On what basis are you saying Shepherd definitively could not make managerial appointments without a majority agreement of the members?

The Heptones - Book of Rules Bit of a chill out after the latest shitstorm.

Jesus that really is laugh or cry.

They're still easily capable of posting big scores themselves so aye you're right, we can't afford to let Adelaide go to our heads.

The point was made throughout commentary from day 2 onwards that changing captain will have little to no use whatever. If they're good enough for Ponting to get anything out of them then he will, but not the other way round. The bowling is utterly toothless and it's an absolute joy to see them getting knocked all over the place. I would normally never say that of any sporting contest I was watching (that's played over that length of time), but I'll make an exception for Australia for numerous reasons that should be abundantly obvious. Their bowling stats for England's innings want framing.

We've done this to death. Absolutely fucking pointless having a thread about it - Leazes is certainly one of a kind. Nicely put.

Dunno but I always thought it was after he'd had his spell trialling at Man U. Wasnt kept there and went out to Canada? Could be wrong like I think it was before. We signed him from Man Utd anyway. A right, got that completely arse about tit then. I was sure we'd signed him from Vancouver Whitecaps but maybe he was there while on Man U's books technically? Feels like pre-history.