NJS

1. He's not my man as I keep having to say but you won't listen. 2. Finishing 5th in the next few years is as likely as it was if they hadn't sold in 2007 - negligible. 3. I deliberately separate the time Shepherd was chairman from before that under Hall as that's when the rot set it imo - what are the stats for that 10 years rather than the 14? 4. As I keep saying the other clubs names don't matter - we had too many 10ths and 13ths under Shepherd for it to be considered universally succesfull. I honestly don't see anything they did for the long term benefit of the club apart from the ground - on the pitch is always transitory (unless you appoint a Ferguson or a Wenger) so I don't see what you can do - of course it depends on what you call long term. Off the pitch all they did in total was extort money.

So we differ on how to measure success then - fair enough - I accept that that comparison is a way of looking at it but as I said I don't care about the names, only the positions. When LLambias said "we aim to finish top 10 or better every year" he didn't mention who those 9 clubs (taking the bare 10th view) would be - it could be Norwich for the next 5 years or anyone else - I don't think it matters.

Glad someone knows the technicalities. According to LM if we finished 10th two years in a row but unlikely as it seems the 9 teams above us were competely different between the 2 years then we would be the best club in the country as no other team had bettered our average. I'd argue our average position was 10th. Perhaps I'm missing something here but if you took a mean average, wouldn't ours be 5th best? correct, it's just too simple for him Alex, and Renton too. As usual you just quote someone who seems to agree with you without actually answering the point. Taking the clubs average against each other is another layer of comparison which I don't think matters: If Stoke finish above us this year and then get relegated does it in anyway shape way or form affect the fact the we finished 12th (or whatever)? I don't care if its Stoke or Man Utd - its the 12th which affects our average position and defines our success or otherwise going forward. Also LM Renton works with stats for a living - do you or is that another secret? Still waiting for a long term business benefit.

Never really got the contempt for Predator 2 - I always enjoy it. The first AVP is shit like.

I always remember years ago being struck by a Doctor Who story - probably with Peter Davison or Colin Baker - where he visited a planet where every government decision was voted on by the populace via an electronic system and I wondered whether it would work - especially now it is pretty much technically feasible. I suppose some happy medium where leaders are forced to consider such votes - maybe in a weighted combination with the commons a la party leadership elections - would work. Of course people might easily say they wouldn't mind tax increases knowing it won't happen and that's different to when it will (a bit like Liberal manifesto pledges in the past).

Glad someone knows the technicalities. According to LM if we finished 10th two years in a row but unlikely as it seems the 9 teams above us were competely different between the 2 years then we would be the best club in the country as no other team had bettered our average. I'd argue our average position was 10th.

It's only a fact by that method. By absolute league position the average under Shephed was 9.4, Obviously If Norwich finished above us one year and then fucked off we'd have a higher average compared to them over the period but the absolute average remains 9.4 Off the pitch apart from the ground they did nothing. On the pitch every decision was short term - signing players for the length of their contracts and sacking managers who are on long contracts is not long term business improvement - its short-termism at its worst. If you want to say that building a team makes good players more likey to sign there's some truth in it - unfortunately that doesn't work anymore because players just go for the money forst of all. BTW, average position was 5th highest, however you look at it. Show me the 8 clubs that did better, if you want to say it was 9th highest. How fucking desperate are you to beat them with any stick you can find man. Give yourself a shake. "Off the pitch they did nothing". "however you look at it" - add the postion we finished with Shepherd as chairman and divide by years = 94/10 = 9.4 Again you don't understand absolute position versus club comparison - you're using the figure which suits your argument and I'm using the one that suits mine. The thing is the vaunted "top 10 every year" statement which you hate doesn't mention clubs names so the method has to be mine. Name something they did off the pitch - just one - should be easy.

It's only a fact by that method. By absolute league position the average under Shephed was 9.4, Obviously If Norwich finished above us one year and then fucked off we'd have a higher average compared to them over the period but the absolute average remains 9.4 Off the pitch apart from the ground they did nothing. On the pitch every decision was short term - signing players for the length of their contracts and sacking managers who are on long contracts is not long term business improvement - its short-termism at its worst. If you want to say that building a team makes good players more likey to sign there's some truth in it - unfortunately that doesn't work anymore because players just go for the money forst of all.

Name one long term decision of benefit to the club other than the ground expansion - if I'm so clueless it should be easy. Also no comment on the average position over Shepherd's tenure. You laud a BS artist who said 'We're going to finish top 4 every year" but who actually finishes 8th or 9th on average. Is that what's it's all about? - as long as someone says "we're fucking great and we're Liverpool's rivals" but who doesn't deliver that on a consistent basis it somehow makes you feel good about yourself and the club? As CT says there are millions of football fans who just hope for the best and still enjoy their football - they might have an idea about where they fit in the scheme of things and where they'd like to finish and sometimes that's unrealistic but to actually imply that if we aren't competing for the league we may as not bother is a load of shit. In fact its worse because apart from one year in anyone's living memory we never have done that. I think we're better than 8th or 9th in the league - bit of a shame we couldn't prove it over 10 years eh? that last post you made, the one referred to, is the most staggering, breathtaking comment I've ever read on any football message board about the Halls and Shepherd. Do you honestly, honestly want to know, looking at the state the club was in, back in 1991, what decisions they made which were for the long term good of the club. I have hardly stopped laughing which is why I haven't been back until now. Even the dipshits on skunkers and NO have NEVER came out with such a comment. By the way, over the 15 years, the club had the 5th highest average position, only 4 clubs had higher, the same 4 clubs are the only ones who qualifed more for europe, get it the average position was the 5th highest . How many times does this need to be said. Only 4 clubs had a higher average position, this makes us the club with the 5th highest league position On top of that, when they took over, the club had one foot in the 3rd division, the stadium was a cowshed, the club couldn't float on the stock exchange for 2.5m quid, and you are asking what decisions were made for the long term future and benefit to the club. Fuck me. Yes they improved the club from 91 with the ground expansion but you still havem't named one business decision taken for the long term apart from that. I don't give a shit about your maths about other clubs - the fact is for the majority of Shepherd's tenure we failed to finish in the top 10. The names above us might change but given the so called ambition it's still a failure on that basis.

An electorate too thick to understand voting reform and thick enough to fall for Cameron's cunning plan of employing an absolute patsy to take all the blame for their economy stalling policies.

Name one long term decision of benefit to the club other than the ground expansion - if I'm so clueless it should be easy. Also no comment on the average position over Shepherd's tenure. You laud a BS artist who said 'We're going to finish top 4 every year" but who actually finishes 8th or 9th on average. Is that what's it's all about? - as long as someone says "we're fucking great and we're Liverpool's rivals" but who doesn't deliver that on a consistent basis it somehow makes you feel good about yourself and the club? As CT says there are millions of football fans who just hope for the best and still enjoy their football - they might have an idea about where they fit in the scheme of things and where they'd like to finish and sometimes that's unrealistic but to actually imply that if we aren't competing for the league we may as not bother is a load of shit. In fact its worse because apart from one year in anyone's living memory we never have done that. I think we're better than 8th or 9th in the league - bit of a shame we couldn't prove it over 10 years eh?

Do fuck off - they expanded the ground but apart from that heaped debt on the club and destroyed cash flow by spending sponsorship money upfront. Why did they cut and run if it was all about the long term? oh my fucking God. Name the long term decisions then oh business guru.

But he didn't deliver on that target for the majority of his tenure so our level under him was Blackburn and Bolton overall. why do you consider us to be on the same level as Bolton and Blackburn I don't names aside and just considering position that's what we achieved under his tenure overall - average position 8.6 counting 96-97 as under him or 9.4 if not. That's about the level of Ashley's target which you think is unacceptable.

Do fuck off - they expanded the ground but apart from that heaped debt on the club and destroyed cash flow by spending sponsorship money upfront. Why did they cut and run if it was all about the long term?

But he didn't deliver on that target for the majority of his tenure so our level under him was Blackburn and Bolton overall.

'Accept' in what way? How can I improve the club other than being a fan? I 'accepted' inferiority under most of Shepherd's tenure as well don't forget. It's quite simple at the end of the day, I go to football to enjoy myself. If I don't, I should stop going. Something quite frankly I should have done when your man appointed Souness. inferior to who ? By the way, Shepherd never owned the club, it was owned by the Halls and Shepherd from 1992 until 2007. 1 club in 97, 12 clubs in 98, 12 clubs in 99, 10 clubs in 00,10 clubs in 01, 3 clubs in 02, 2 clubs in 03, 4 clubs in 04, 13 clubs in 05, 6 clubs in 06 and 12 clubs in 07. 5 years out 11 we surpassed Ashley's unambitious target - in 6 we did not. anybody but the Halls and Shepherd then Didn't say that - just pointing out that those years weren't as good as you make out - I enjoyed that period (at least until Souness) as much as anyone but if you want to beat Ashley with the the "top 10 every year" stick you have to expect it being pointed out that if Shepherd had stated that as his target he would have failed. Since his stated target was higher than that he failed more. Realistic targets no matter how painful are more achievable then pie in the sky bravado which is what you want since you can't actually suggest any method of changing the picture.

indeed, its a personal view. Of the person who was employed to make such a decision - a bit more relevant than yours or mine.

'Accept' in what way? How can I improve the club other than being a fan? I 'accepted' inferiority under most of Shepherd's tenure as well don't forget. It's quite simple at the end of the day, I go to football to enjoy myself. If I don't, I should stop going. Something quite frankly I should have done when your man appointed Souness. inferior to who ? By the way, Shepherd never owned the club, it was owned by the Halls and Shepherd from 1992 until 2007. 1 club in 97, 12 clubs in 98, 12 clubs in 99, 10 clubs in 00,10 clubs in 01, 3 clubs in 02, 2 clubs in 03, 4 clubs in 04, 13 clubs in 05, 6 clubs in 06 and 12 clubs in 07. 5 years out 11 we surpassed Ashley's unambitious target - in 6 we did not.

Did he not play for us like?

A club who've won more trophies than us, have a more recent period of success, and have an all-time average crowd within a couple of hundred of ours - do you think we should automatically finish above them as well? Of course we should. As a business we should be at least 30% bigger than them as we have been for the best part of 20 years. More trophies what a pathetic statement, four more trophies, so fuckin what? It's staggering our all time average gate is higher than their's given the fact we've spent 20 years of our history in Division Two and they haven't even been down for 60 years. The fact is we are a bigger club in finance and fanbase in 2011 by far I'd say, so just to clarify, your argument is pathetic. More trophies. They've won one trophy in the last 24 years, one more than us, but so fuckin what. Let me ask you a question every season why are Newcastle on TV generally 5-10 games more than them? No wonder Leazes gets annoyed with posts like that. I actually think we are a bigger club than Everton all things considered. What I was trying to say was that from an objective point of view, there's no "good" reason to think we should be automatically finish above them. Their team of the 80s was more successful than our team of the 90s and it's "only" 24 years since they won the league compared with our 67 - you can see why a neutral would think it was "deluded" to think we should finish above them by rights. We feature more on TV for several reasons - Everyone know Everton are shit to watch and Sky know we are a bigger draw audience wise which is part of why I do think we are bigger. Having said that we do feature a lot with the hope that we will provide car crash TV.

A club who've won more trophies than us, have a more recent period of success, and have an all-time average crowd within a couple of hundred of ours - do you think we should automatically finish above them as well?

I get my information from freely available internet sources - I know you never read other people links because you think that somehow makes you some kind of intellectual or something but the internet is full of facts. Again you assume I support Ashley - that isn't what this is about - its about your opinion that the worst thing about selling Carroll was that it was to a club you think are our rivals - my opinion is that they are not. That "fact" is a reflection of the current regime but its also a reflection of football history and their place in world football. Do you honestly think we are as big a club as Liverpool?

I've tried to explain why Liverpool and Spurs are streets ahead of us but then again apart from 7 or 8 years they always have been. rubbish. If you talking about the recent history, are you referring to 12-13 years of the Halls and Shepherd era ? If so, why do you "hate" them ? These people who base their "opinions" on how much they do or don't "like" somebody, are a fucking hoot. We finished above Liverpool once in the 10 years Shepherd was chairman and three times with Hall - 4 times overall in 13 years - they must have been quaking - is that factual enough for you? Your view that because of those 4 years we are somehow rivals to the most successful club in English history who've won about 3 times as many trophies is laughable. we challenged them, are we challenging them now ? When did we last finish above Liverpool before the Halls and Shepherd, have we since, and when will we next ? Is that factual enough for you ? Your view that we are unable to challenge Liverpool having done it under the Halls and Shepherd because we bought the calibre of players that they did, under anyone else, is laughable. What about Spurs ? You under-sell NUFC if you like, not everybody is so negative. We never did previously because obviously they were top dogs - as I said for a couple of years here and there we finished above them and that will probably never happen again in the foreseeable future because at the end of the day they are are a global club that only decades of success could challenge. Funnily enough part of our success in finishing above them was due to their bad managerial appointments rather than spending power. This was my point - to break into the hierarchy of the top English clubs would take more than just a few years but you missed it as usual - you think those few odd years mean something now as if not matching that is somehow abject failure. As I said in the context of football in 2011 just getting to the top of the next level down is all we could hope for and that would be with better owners as well. Owners who never put a penny into the club would be useless today. You've already said we can't challenge Man U, Chelsea and Man City - extending that list to Liverpool and probably Spurs is just common sense but you have to cling on to them because you think we somehow took the piss out of them previously. My point was that that was a blip. If you want to give me an argument that we are as big or bigger than Liverpool because of those 4 years then I don't think saying that's crap is being negative - its just realism.

I've tried to explain why Liverpool and Spurs are streets ahead of us but then again apart from 7 or 8 years they always have been. rubbish. If you talking about the recent history, are you referring to 12-13 years of the Halls and Shepherd era ? If so, why do you "hate" them ? These people who base their "opinions" on how much they do or don't "like" somebody, are a fucking hoot. We finished above Liverpool once in the 10 years Shepherd was chairman and three times with Hall - 4 times overall in 13 years - they must have been quaking - is that factual enough for you? Your view that because of those 4 years we are somehow rivals to the most successful club in English history who've won about 3 times as many trophies is laughable.

Red was harsh like - punching away when bobbling around the six yard box is different to "saving" a shot on the line imo. Good pen from the shit cunt as well.