LeazesMag

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1208548,00.html

he was also a cancer that had to go if the club wanted success

What's that supposed to mean? Just answer a question, it's pretty easy. Who identifies the players to bring to the club in order to build a team? 76120[/snapback] The scouts! OK, pedency apart, it's Souness, but then I've never disputed that! Answer this simple one then in return: Who has the final say-so by slapping his signature on the cheque and has the power to say "not on your life am I buying that piece of shit!"? 76361[/snapback] This is something a manager would say should a club have a Chairman who is involved in team affairs when he shouldn't be. 76367[/snapback] 76370[/snapback] The final refuge. Obviously you believe a Chairman should be saying those words to a manager when in disagreement with the manager's decision on a team affairs issue, which means you are in favour of interference in team affairs by a Chairman. Wouldn't mind you telling me how any Chairman is supposed to convince ANY manager to join any club under those circumstances. 76389[/snapback] Sorry to get involved but i think this point of view is a kind of riposte to Leazes Mag. LM (i believe) has frequently stated that if you back Souness then you must, by inference back all of his decisions including getting rid of Bellamy and Robert. LM's support of Freddie was then felt to be hypocritical by some (me included) as by those standards LM must clearly back the appointment of Souness in the first place, and his continued employment. I think i'm right in this (regarding other people's opinions) but i most humbly apologise if i'm wrong. Also, i have no wish to re-open that debate with LM, i respect his stance and we've all discussed it to death which probably accounts for Craig's reluctance. 76430[/snapback] I can't see your point chocchip, I've said that I what I think of FS appointing Souness, but also one bad appointment doesn't make a bad chairman. It doesn't change the fact that FS is a good chairman because all the other managers he has appointed have been welcomed by the majority of the clubs support, as they were all successful, and built good teams, and left good sets of players at their previous clubs. Isn't this the same criteria we are all seeing when we are looking at Hitzfeld and Hiddink ? FS also backs his managers to the hilt, to the level of Newcastle United financially, and allows them the freedom to do their jobs. That, to coin a phrase, is a "proper" chairman. i can say this, because i said from the start i wasn't happy with Souness, but everyone who supported Souness to be successful, by saying give him time, are in no position to slag off freddie for appointing Souness because they agreed with it ! Souness getting rid of Bellamy is different, because i didn't support him. And I didn't support because he always has been, and always will be, a shit manager. If anything, his treatment of Bellamy proved to me conclusively that I had judged him correctly. By the same token, Bobby Robson sold Solano, but that didn't make him a bad manager either. 76432[/snapback] LM, apologies if my post seemed to be a criticism of your views. I was presuming the perception of your views was the basis for Craig's stance with HTL. I'm more than aware of your opinions . I don't necessarily agree with all of them but i listen to what you have to say. Didn't mean to start a debate with you in the middle of HTL and Craig's discussion. 76520[/snapback] no probs mate, my reply wasn't a criticism either, just emphasising my view. Reading through the thread, I agree there is a lack of professionalism in the club, this has always been the case, it improved substantially, massively during the Keegan/Hall era [so you are wrong in your comment "2 people will disagree" Craig.] though. However, it doesn't change my view, Shepherd in spite of his faults is still one of the better chairman, but not the best, no one has said that. I still say it would be far easier to get a worse chairman than a better one than FS, and I've already posted numerous examples of high profile inferior chairman, that we would be a lot worse off with, and significantly no one disagreed. In fact you've already mentioned dogless .....

What's that supposed to mean? Just answer a question, it's pretty easy. Who identifies the players to bring to the club in order to build a team? 76120[/snapback] The scouts! OK, pedency apart, it's Souness, but then I've never disputed that! Answer this simple one then in return: Who has the final say-so by slapping his signature on the cheque and has the power to say "not on your life am I buying that piece of shit!"? 76361[/snapback] This is something a manager would say should a club have a Chairman who is involved in team affairs when he shouldn't be. 76367[/snapback] 76370[/snapback] The final refuge. Obviously you believe a Chairman should be saying those words to a manager when in disagreement with the manager's decision on a team affairs issue, which means you are in favour of interference in team affairs by a Chairman. Wouldn't mind you telling me how any Chairman is supposed to convince ANY manager to join any club under those circumstances. 76389[/snapback] Sorry to get involved but i think this point of view is a kind of riposte to Leazes Mag. LM (i believe) has frequently stated that if you back Souness then you must, by inference back all of his decisions including getting rid of Bellamy and Robert. LM's support of Freddie was then felt to be hypocritical by some (me included) as by those standards LM must clearly back the appointment of Souness in the first place, and his continued employment. I think i'm right in this (regarding other people's opinions) but i most humbly apologise if i'm wrong. Also, i have no wish to re-open that debate with LM, i respect his stance and we've all discussed it to death which probably accounts for Craig's reluctance. 76430[/snapback] I can't see your point chocchip, I've said that I what I think of FS appointing Souness, but also one bad appointment doesn't make a bad chairman. It doesn't change the fact that FS is a good chairman because all the other managers he has appointed have been welcomed by the majority of the clubs support, as they were all successful, and built good teams, and left good sets of players at their previous clubs. Isn't this the same criteria we are all seeing when we are looking at Hitzfeld and Hiddink ? FS also backs his managers to the hilt, to the level of Newcastle United financially, and allows them the freedom to do their jobs. That, to coin a phrase, is a "proper" chairman. i can say this, because i said from the start i wasn't happy with Souness, but everyone who supported Souness to be successful, by saying give him time, are in no position to slag off freddie for appointing Souness because they agreed with it ! Souness getting rid of Bellamy is different, because i didn't support him. And I didn't support because he always has been, and always will be, a shit manager. If anything, his treatment of Bellamy proved to me conclusively that I had judged him correctly. By the same token, Bobby Robson sold Solano, but that didn't make him a bad manager either.

........and how many times have we said THAT..but he's still bloody here

What's that supposed to mean? Just answer a question, it's pretty easy. Who identifies the players to bring to the club in order to build a team? 76120[/snapback] The scouts! OK, pedency apart, it's Souness, but then I've never disputed that! Answer this simple one then in return: Who has the final say-so by slapping his signature on the cheque and has the power to say "not on your life am I buying that piece of shit!"? 76361[/snapback] This is something a manager would say should a club have a Chairman who is involved in team affairs when he shouldn't be. 76367[/snapback] It's also a trigger for any manager with any principles to walk out, none of our last 5 managers would accept this Its one way to get rid of fuckwit though

As I have said in many previous posts, I won't have an opinion of them either way until they've proved themselves one way or another after some time at the club... 76358[/snapback] so you want it both ways.....you really have no right to criticise mate if you only use hindsight, anyone can do that

As I said in other threads (and on other forums), I think it would become more attractive if the tosser wasn't in charge anymore. 76294[/snapback] it will stop anyone who really fancies our job not to go somewhere else if they can see it is available and we are looking

wouldn't you like it

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13490998,00.html

i think it's not half so amazing as you not being able to admit you thought Souness would be a success, and got it wrong Gem 76119[/snapback] To coin a phrase dear to your heart: answer the question. 76189[/snapback] Aside from the fact I have clearly said Shepherd appointed the wrong man [which i've said since September 2004] I haven't a clue what you are on about Gem. If you mean to imply a question along the lines of should Shepherd resign because he's made one bad appointment, my answer to that is quite clear too, but I'll spell it out for you anyway. No, not for one bad appointment that I knew would fail. I can say that, because I criticed FS at the time, however you can't because you agreed with him that Souness would be a success. Now, having backed Souness to be successful, do you now accept you were wrong ?

You know that's different, look at their pedigree, the same reason we can't blame him for Dalglish. precisely my point. Hw's only made one appointment the majority were unhappy with, although those who said "give him tme" must have been, by defnition of course, the comments the Blackbun fans made echo the comments those who correctly had serious reservations about Souness But FS presumably appointed him to clear out the "bad eggs", a point which I disagreed with, but the Souness backers did/do agree with, meaning they supported Freddies decision, so there is little point in slagging him off now when they agreed with him

Fair enough, that he wanted to spend the time with his wife. I still think he and his staff should watch how players do in games, not just in training, even if it are reserve games. And that especially because we are speaking of the man who - to the amusement of the crowd - threw on the famous Ali Dia because he couldn't spot in training that this man is everything but not an international football player. 76135[/snapback] considering how he said only days earlier "we will leave no stone unturned for this club" blah blah blah and "this is a 24 hour a day job" etc etc etc but we are used to his hypocrisy and lies by now

Question for Craig etc If Shepherd appoints Hiddink or Hitzfeld you will be pleased, no doubt. If they fail however, will you still say, or then say, it was a bad appointment or FS is a shit chairman

i think it's not half so amazing as you not being able to admit you thought Souness would be a success, and got it wrong Gem

the point being, Craig, that you either agree with a choice of manager at the time or not. FS is the same as all of us. If YOU support a choice of manager who flops, you can't say Shepherd is stupid, naive etc etc when you were as well. most definitely, although he gave him the money as a " last chance " to get it right [again, most of us were happy with the 4 new players that summer] because tbh Souness is one of the last managers i would have at SJP, [as i've said often] i wouldn't have let him anywhere near the place. But as I've also said, one bad appoointment doesn't make a bad chairman, provided he gets it right next time. If he gets it wrong next time, it will trigger a major demise of the club, I think. i think that, at the end if the day, he will support the next manager, if he wants Bellamy back he would be back - if Shepherd didn't back his manager then he would indeed be a poor chairman and boss. who else did you not agree with at the time then, out of the 4 he's appointed ?

So what will you say if he appoints a manager you approve of next time, or one that wins a trophy, or one that gets into the top 4? Change your mind ? [with hindsight .... ]

it goes without saying, IMO what she proposes is getting off lightly. Must adnit though, instead of slowly burning them at the stake, torturing them for 50 years in jail has its merits ..... only problem with that is somewhere down the line some do gooder will try and get them out

Souness. He decided who he wanted out, and in. Shepherd backed his manager, like all of you said, back him and give him time. So you can't say Shepherd is shite when he did what you advocated ! I can though, because I said he should sack him, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt providing he does better next time. One bad appointment doesn't change the fact Shepherd is one of the better chairman. The Liverpool board made the same mistake once, would you call them bad directors ?

now catmag....as i've always advocated gruesome punishments for gruesome crimes, no remission, life for a life, or life means life, and been continuallty slaughtered for it ... i can't decide if you are taking the piss or not

making one crap appointment doesn't make Shepherd a bad chairman....and bloody hell, no ones called Souness more than me

no, i haven't. I think souness behaved like an amateur, most managers just don't let their chairmen interfere with transfer dealings, and souness certainly wouldn't. Personnel wise, no one can say he has been anything other than a failure, at great financial cost

so you are saying that we should have gone on into the season with Shearer as our only forward/striker ? [that would have been down to Souness] 75766[/snapback] That doesn't appear to be what he's saying tbh. 75770[/snapback] do i really need to put the first line on bold - my whole post is addressing the desperate situation we were in before the deadline, thanks to Souness' ego and behaving like a complete amateur 75773[/snapback] You've just outlined precisely what I've known you've thought all along Leazes... We make a good signing, you praise Shepherd. We make a poor signing, you blame Souness... I'm not defending Souness, but my point is that Shepherd is ultimately responsible for the signings of Babayaro, Boumsong & Faye as well as those of Owen, Parker, Emre and Solano. 76023[/snapback] wrong. i don't think Shepherd makes ANY signings, i DO think though that in these exceptional circumstances that Souness put us in an extremely vulnerable position, whereby other clubs otook advantage and exploited it

LM, I've read your post, but I'd replied to HTL first and some of it will be repetition. I actually agree with a lot of what you are saying, I guess some of my viewpoint is a little muddy. Perhaps the crux of this was that I felt that as we were stuck with him, we should at least get behind him and the team otherwise we really were screwed. I appreciate your points about bellars and in some ways agree with you. but as I have previously stated, I dont think bellars was without blame in things. I think my argument(for want of a better word) is weaker because I can see both sides of the coin and therefore am not as staunch about a particular side as you are. I agree the whole thing could have been handled better but it wasn't. As for this being a website, yes it is. But by support, I meant in person, in voice at games not on a forum where no-one at NUFC gives a shit. 75965[/snapback] I hope, after today, it is the last straw, because if it is, we have the FA Cup and a UEFA spot to go for, if we keep him we have no chance of antyhing except avoiding a relegation scrap

better watch it...Rob will be on your case defending him....unless he moves into HIS street that is