Jump to content

ChocChip

Members
  • Posts

    547
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ChocChip

  1. ChocChip

    'Types'

    I've heard there are some women out there who don't like giving head. I find this difficult to believe, surely natural selection would have weened them out by now... It's a strange world.
  2. ChocChip

    'Types'

    White women.......
  3. Good call all those who answered my questions about the board .... Which was, eerrr....nobody except pp, mancmag and chocchip....even though we couldn't agree completely, they answered 108015[/snapback] We shouldn't confuse ability with ambition though.
  4. He's sh*t at football though, which i see as a disadvantage.
  5. the voters ? poor comparison mind ...... 106720[/snapback] Aye fair enough...who then turn on her* as she is no longer perceived to be making the right decisions to take the country in the right direction and so she resigns. Whats the difference? You're seriously deluded. By the way re the question why I chose Liverpool as opposed to another club. They're a comparable size to us and they win stuff. Thats what I want us to do. I want us to be mre like them than Everton. You're content to just be 'better than Everton'. Which is part of the problem. *Thatcher/Major.....it doesnt really matter 106728[/snapback] So are the others I've mentioned, as i said all of them bar 2 have won cups since we have. So why Liverpool ? because they are the ONLY ones....as I said, raised expectations...football didn't start in 1992, and coming runners up 4 times since then without coming first doesn't make you shit or your board of directors either... You aren't the only one who wants to win stuff, we all do. We have got closer to it and competed for it more consistently than all the other clubs of a "comparable size" to us, or able to compete, and beat us having done it before. By picking only Liverpool you are effectively putting us in a 2 team league finishing bottom.... The boards and chairman of ALL those other big city clubs could challenge us if they wanted to, or ambitious enough, but the simple fact is, they aren't. 106788[/snapback] With regards to managerial appoinments: A good CV gives someone the 'right' to apply for a job. They then have an interview where they discuss their ideas and strategy, this is logical. I want to know what part of Dalgleish's interview Freddie liked, the bit about selling Ginola, Ferdinand and Asprilla? The bit about buying Anderson, Guivarch and Glass? The bit about investing in young players like Serrant and Hamilton? A good CV is fine but you need to know a mangers plans before you employ him. Common sense. 106881[/snapback] You do yourself no favours by taking the extreme examples to attempt to back it up mate. For starters, selling Arsprilla was a great idea, and that would sell him to me like a shot. As Ginola had clearly lost something at Newcastle, his future was clearly doubtful at the time. Ferdinand was sold on the back of the club going PLC, to raise the share price, Mark Cambridge of the grey suit in London being hugely influential, this is well discussed and a bad blow of course, but not the usual circumstances. If Dalglish had also told me he was going to buy Given, Solano, Speed, Hamman, Tomasson, Dabizas, and put the youth system back in place, i would have gave him the job, particularly on the back of his CV ? Wouldn't you ? [or anyone else ?] To be fair, Serrant and Glass were reasonable gambles they were players for small fees who may have made the step up, they certainly helped to get the reserve team settled down again as quickly as possible. BTW his CV beats all the current candidates hands down. So how can everyone on here say "they are good candidates" on the back of their CV ? 106909[/snapback] So how does panic sacking Dalglish four games into the season fit into your assesment of Shepherds policy of getting the right man for the job and backing him? 106933[/snapback] simple answer to that is the totally unrealistic one that we should of course get the right manager in, EVERY time, as EVERYBODY else does.... Daft that like, and I thought YOU had more about you than make such a comment Are you saying that Shepherd DIDN'T back Dalglish BTW ? 106975[/snapback] I chose my players as carefullt as you did to make the point. To dismiss the excellent point (in bold) does you no favours though, you've enough about you to answer that point fairly.
  6. the voters ? poor comparison mind ...... 106720[/snapback] Aye fair enough...who then turn on her* as she is no longer perceived to be making the right decisions to take the country in the right direction and so she resigns. Whats the difference? You're seriously deluded. By the way re the question why I chose Liverpool as opposed to another club. They're a comparable size to us and they win stuff. Thats what I want us to do. I want us to be mre like them than Everton. You're content to just be 'better than Everton'. Which is part of the problem. *Thatcher/Major.....it doesnt really matter 106728[/snapback] So are the others I've mentioned, as i said all of them bar 2 have won cups since we have. So why Liverpool ? because they are the ONLY ones....as I said, raised expectations...football didn't start in 1992, and coming runners up 4 times since then without coming first doesn't make you shit or your board of directors either... You aren't the only one who wants to win stuff, we all do. We have got closer to it and competed for it more consistently than all the other clubs of a "comparable size" to us, or able to compete, and beat us having done it before. By picking only Liverpool you are effectively putting us in a 2 team league finishing bottom.... The boards and chairman of ALL those other big city clubs could challenge us if they wanted to, or ambitious enough, but the simple fact is, they aren't. 106788[/snapback] With regards to managerial appoinments: A good CV gives someone the 'right' to apply for a job. They then have an interview where they discuss their ideas and strategy, this is logical. I want to know what part of Dalgleish's interview Freddie liked, the bit about selling Ginola, Ferdinand and Asprilla? The bit about buying Anderson, Guivarch and Glass? The bit about investing in young players like Serrant and Hamilton? A good CV is fine but you need to know a mangers plans before you employ him. Common sense.
  7. You can't have done much. Lamont was the chancellor under John Major. 106699[/snapback] Errrrr, i'm a lot better at comparitive religion
  8. Ramage will only be decent if he plays very intelligently imo. This is because he's slow, not very strong, not a great jumper (decent timing though), not a great tackler and seriously average at football. To make up for this he must play with great awareness and excellent decision making becasue he has no physical attributes to rely on to get him out of trouble.
  9. I've done a bit of political histroy lately so i'll attempt to draw a comparison. Thatcher - Primeminister Lamont - Chancellor Economy f**ks up big time, Lamont takes the fall, but who is ultimately responsible?
  10. LM, i'm quite aware that i'm loading these questions in my favour and as you disagree i can understand your reluctance to give me satisfaction on this issue, but to pursue my point further: Do YOU think Dalgleish was a sucees ? YES/NO Do YOU think Gullit was a succes ? YES/NO Do YOU think Robson was a succes ? YES/NO Do YOU think Souness was a success ? YES/NO Ideally i would like you to answer yes or by your own criteria, though of course you quite free to answer in any way you see fit. I just feel a direct yes or no to each of these would be a good spring board for ongoing discussion. I don't need to know your criteria, you don't have to justify your answers imo. If someone thinks a certain way, so be it.
  11. Regardless of foresight and hindsight, which of the 4 managers FS has appointed do you think has bought success to the club? Just give me a number, not an explanation for his choices, i've read them already.
  12. I have it on pretty good authority Daglish didn't rate Ferdinand, there were others players he could have sold first, if he wished. EDIT: Incidentally, I hope you aren't insinuating the chairman sells players at NUFC 102498[/snapback] Maybe not. But he had to recuperate money and Ferdinand was the prize asset. Shear bad luck that our other star striker was seriously injured preseason (pun intended), leaving a kid by himself. 102510[/snapback] Did Souness suffer from the same bas luck then?
  13. FAO: Renton. Sorry, don't want to use up bandwidth. Personally i feel Given has been more important. If an employer gets 1 appoinment right out of 4, is he a good recruiter?
  14. The point about his record of managerial appoints chocchip, and I'm answering you as at least you answer questions with common sense and factual info rather than just ducking them, is as I have said all along which is that no-one, absolutely no one, could have forseen a manager, ie Dalglish we are talking about, who had won 4 league titles and 3 FA Cups and 3 manager of the years as being anything other than a top quality, high level appointment of the highest standing. So, what else do you expect Fred / the board, to do ? Reasonable question yes ? I'm sorry but just to say with hindsight that he "turned out to be crap" simply isn't good enough. This is why I ask what alternative criteria people would use, and they simply do not answer. Likewise Gullit. Craig has said that Gullit built the Chelsea team that won the FA Cup and went on to win more trophies under a different manager, which is correct. So again, what is wrong with the board of NUFC appointing a manager who did that ? Are these 2 appointments not more qualified than some of the current contenders ie O'Neill, Allardyce ? And Dalglish to be on a par with Hitzfeld ? Is this not correct ? The people on this forum are all backing these people on what basis - the same basis that was used to appoint Dalglish and Gullit, yet for some strange reason all they say is the club doesn't attract top managers ? What were Dalglish and Gullit if they were not top managers ? Likewise I consider it fully justified in asking about other chairman of the big city clubs, and our ex chairmen at the club. Because in context, both of these comparisons show how well the current board are doing. And that is very well, not the best, and we won't be either unfortunately as Chelsea while the Russian is there and Manu are always going to have the biggest financial clout and it will take something extremely special to knock them both off their perch. One maybe but not both. Wenger has done it with Arsenal, beating only one of them, however if he stays at the club for longer and they find a way to combat the financial restraints imposed by a new stadium [facts which we at NUFC have already incorporated yet when mentioned by myself are instantly dismissed as "not being part of a long term plan"....what exactly is it if it isn't a company with a forward looking board showing ambitious planning ?] will find it much more difficult. Likewise I ask who the man is who will take over from Shepherd and guaranteed to be better, again - no answer. Simply because there isn't one. The vast majority of big city clubs are behind us competition wise. Apart from Liverpool and Arsenal on the field, in the last decade. I think that will change in Arsenals case if they lose Wenger. Thats quite a few clubs who are not matching us, our turnover and on the field, why not? If they have done it in the past why are the not doing it now ? It is true to say that Shepherd took over a good club from SJH but it's also true that Shepherd has kept it going...I have stated this but again no reply other than a "so what"...as if it is easy....if it was so easy how come big city clubs in the past who were much much bigger than us have lost their way ie Man City, Spurs, Villa, Leeds to name 4.....staying near the top of the league isn't a divine right you will only stay there if you strive to stay ahead of the rest. Likewise, what was stopping our directors before the Halls and Shepherd getting 50,000 gates and buying England players ? What was to stop them from building on our rather unexpected Fairs Cup win in 1969 ? Nothing, but they didn't, why do you think they didn't ? Now, if people are going to reply to this post with one word answers or usual dumb moronic comments like Fred is shit, or untrue ones such as we don't or can't appoint top managers, consider it not to receive a reply, however someone like yourself who will I suspect answer the whole post in general and in context with intelligent points where you may disagree, then I will. 102296[/snapback] LM, i'll try to respond. I was a bit young at the time so i feel stupid stating my feelings about the Dalgliesh appoinment however, with his record it would seem to the ordinary Joe Bloggs that he had the credentials to take over and push us forward. I do think someone should have asked him at the interview what his plans were though, because if he'd have said ' I plann to sell Ginola, Ferdinand, Asprilla, etc. and replace them with Stephen Glass, Pamela Anderson, Des Hamilton and Carl Serrant, i think he wouldn't have been appointed. I've said it before, i think one of the most important aspects of a new manager is that he wants the players he inherits (especially if they are very expensive and have come VERY close to succeding already). Dalgleish was clearly not at all happy with the squad and replaced them with a load of clangers. IMO, Solano was a very good buy and Given was the most important player this club has signed in the last 10 years, much more important than Shearer, i thought Speed was a goo buy too. However Souness also made decent purchases. Gullit had only ever managed 1 club i think and he was sacked form that one, why do YOU think he was a good appoinment? SBR, i think we all agree was good. GS, same effect as Dalgleish but without the pedigree - result was the same though. How many failures, and 3 out of 4 have been does it take for people to think that FS isn't capable of employing the right man? Isn't he meant to know the football world inside out? Why would we know any better? Financially, as i stated, i can't fault him much unless he's f**ked us by allowing GS to spend £50m. I'd like to ask, you say under FS we haven't gone into a decline like those other big clubs, are you sure? Where did we finish last season? Where are we now? Will we finish top 4? What makes you think we are doing so well?
  15. Me too, what a time to blank me
  16. Took me ages to write as well
  17. In my most humble and blackest of opinions Shepherd appears to be doing pretty well with the financial side of things. However, i'm curious to see how our recent spending spree has affected how standing. If the money spent in the close season puts us in serious financial trouble then Shepherd's actions are indefensible. He will have gambled NUFC's fortune on a manager no one important except FS thought capable. However, my guess is that FS is a bit cleverer than that and that we could afford it, just. It is fundamental to point out though that FS only makes money available that the club raises itself. He does not put his money in, rather he spends our money. To say he backs his managers....well, what with? Our money actually. I should say your money because i don't see many games. So, if there's extra money available after costs, he gives to the manager rather than stealing it. That's what he's meant to do. So we can establish he isn't destructive, crooked chairman but he isn't the Steve Gibson type either. He just does his job, nothing more, nothing less. This doesn't make him a saint or a sinner. His record for appointments have not gone well: Dalgleish.....failure Gullit...........failure Robson.......i'd say success Souness......failure Frankly i don't care if fans wanted this person or that person. We are just the plebs. FS is meant to be a professional and to know his business. The onus is on him to make the right choice, not on us. I couldn't give a f**k if everyone backed Gullit, he didn't work out, he failed spectacularly and FS is meant to know better because IT IS HIS JOB. So ultimatley, if a managerial appoinment doesn't work out, it can be bad luck. If 3 out 4 don't work out it is the empolyers fault. Simple, straight forward, unargueable common sense
  18. ChocChip

    Luque

    One of my criteria would be that the manager would be very satisfied with the squad as it is because i don't think we can afford wholesale changes. It happens too often at NUFC, new manager, new first 11. We need someone who can bring the potential out of the squad while strengthening on the cheap. I guess the criteria people look for is track record, status, etc. I can see that, but my above point is essential imo. Souness clearly didn't like the squad which i think causes a lot of problems. Players get a new boss and the first thing he does is try to replace him, that would make me moody tbh.
  19. Most clubs have a reserve side and, failing that, a youth system. Why haven't we?
  20. Bolton probably couldn't afford the weight penalty for taking him.
  21. I'd play Luque instead of Dyer, he needs a rest i reckon. I'd have Chopra on the bench if Shearer's not fit. Charlton are pretty awful tbh.
  22. I think Elliott will do fine against S'Hampton but if Charlton play Rommerdahl they're gonna get a lot of joy down the right wing.
  23. On MOTD, Roeder seemed to hint that Southampton may be his last game if he takes it. I reckon he know's something is close. Also, why has a call for Hitzfeld been deemed puzzling? Is it because he's not Oliver's choice?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.