Hughton says not many signings this summer.

[LeazesMag 0]

I saw that, did the Halls have over 50% between that period ? If so, when did they reduce their holding ? And in any case, as I have pointed out to you - which we agree - Keegan was the person who was behind the rise of the club and the 3 people who appointed him are the ones who should take the credit for doing that too.

I can't see what you are arguing about here, unless you just want to argue with me.

 

Why are they to take credit for the successes, but are absolved of the failures?

 

what failures ?

 

5th most qualified team for europe, 5th highest average league position, 2 FA Cup Finals, Champions League qualifications, expanded and full to capacity stadium, top quality footballers.

 

Not too bad from what I can see. Shame they only came twice in the premiership and froze in 2 Cup Finals but you can hardly blame the board for that.

[Craig 6368]

Where in this thread am I blaming Shepherd? All I've done is pointed out your blindingly obvious mistake.

 

Get back on track man!

 

I'm on track. Tell us when the Halls had over 50% ?

 

I already have done if you read the thread. Of course, if you don't believe that to be true, you can always point out what respective percentages Hall, Shepherd & Hall Jnr held prior to April 1997.

 

Bet you don't though.

 

 

I saw that, did the Halls have over 50% between that period ? If so, when did they reduce their holding ? And in any case, as I have pointed out to you - which we agree - Keegan was the person who was behind the rise of the club and the 3 people who appointed him are the ones who should take the credit for doing that too.

 

I can't see what you are arguing about here, unless you just want to argue with me.

 

This isn't about who you, I or anyone else for that matter thinks was behind the rise of the club. Nor am I 'fancying a go' or 'needled' by you.

 

You made a statement which was wholly untrue. There's no need for you to lead it into the same old debate that you've had countless times on here with others so I fail to see why you are trying to do so.

 

As for when they reduced their holding... April 1997 surprisingly enough

[LeazesMag 0]

Where in this thread am I blaming Shepherd? All I've done is pointed out your blindingly obvious mistake.

 

Get back on track man!

 

I'm on track. Tell us when the Halls had over 50% ?

 

I already have done if you read the thread. Of course, if you don't believe that to be true, you can always point out what respective percentages Hall, Shepherd & Hall Jnr held prior to April 1997.

 

Bet you don't though.

 

 

I saw that, did the Halls have over 50% between that period ? If so, when did they reduce their holding ? And in any case, as I have pointed out to you - which we agree - Keegan was the person who was behind the rise of the club and the 3 people who appointed him are the ones who should take the credit for doing that too.

 

I can't see what you are arguing about here, unless you just want to argue with me.

 

This isn't about who you, I or anyone else for that matter thinks was behind the rise of the club. Nor am I 'fancying a go' or 'needled' by you.

 

You made a statement which was wholly untrue. There's no need for you to lead it into the same old debate that you've had countless times on here with others so I fail to see why you are trying to do so.

 

As for when they reduced their holding... April 1997 surprisingly enough

 

They reduced their holding from over 50% to around 30% ? Why ?

 

Fair enough if that is correct, but I still don't get your point ? The only point being that you are maybe trying to pin all the blame on Shepherd for the last few years [ignoring the previous 12 or so and not including the 7th top finish] when the Halls and Shepherd were running the club and nobody had a majority shareholding.

 

This isn't about bringing up the same old argument either

[ChezGiven 0]

Anyway, do we think the club's comments are aimed at reducing expectations from

 

1. Spending 40m to spending 15 - 20m?

 

or

 

2. Spending 15m to spending nowt?

 

Its clear as day that reducing expectations is the communications strategy.

 

Sorry for going off topic

[LeazesMag 0]

Anyway, do we think the club's comments are aimed at reducing expectations from

 

1. Spending 40m to spending 15 - 20m?

 

or

 

2. Spending 15m to spending nowt?

 

Its clear as day that reducing expectations is the communications strategy.

 

Sorry for going off topic

 

just enjoy the summer

[The Fish 9340]

I saw that, did the Halls have over 50% between that period ? If so, when did they reduce their holding ? And in any case, as I have pointed out to you - which we agree - Keegan was the person who was behind the rise of the club and the 3 people who appointed him are the ones who should take the credit for doing that too.

I can't see what you are arguing about here, unless you just want to argue with me.

 

Why are they to take credit for the successes, but are absolved of the failures?

 

what failures ?

 

5th most qualified team for europe, 5th highest average league position, 2 FA Cup Finals, Champions League qualifications, expanded and full to capacity stadium, top quality footballers.

 

Not too bad from what I can see. Shame they only came twice in the premiership and froze in 2 Cup Finals but you can hardly blame the board for that.

 

Well specifically in this discussion you expect them to take part credit for Keegan's ressurgance however, you seem unwilling for them to take their part in the horror shows under Gullit, Roeder, and Souness

[ChezGiven 0]

We are moving to a bigger and tougher league so it would be silly to think we don’t need to bring some in. I think if I look at the impact we have had with players we’ve brought in during the season then you can see how new faces can refresh things

[LeazesMag 0]

I saw that, did the Halls have over 50% between that period ? If so, when did they reduce their holding ? And in any case, as I have pointed out to you - which we agree - Keegan was the person who was behind the rise of the club and the 3 people who appointed him are the ones who should take the credit for doing that too.

I can't see what you are arguing about here, unless you just want to argue with me.

 

Why are they to take credit for the successes, but are absolved of the failures?

 

what failures ?

 

5th most qualified team for europe, 5th highest average league position, 2 FA Cup Finals, Champions League qualifications, expanded and full to capacity stadium, top quality footballers.

 

Not too bad from what I can see. Shame they only came twice in the premiership and froze in 2 Cup Finals but you can hardly blame the board for that.

 

Well specifically in this discussion you expect them to take part credit for Keegan's ressurgance however, you seem unwilling for them to take their part in the horror shows under Gullit, Roeder, and Souness

 

you mean reaching an FA Cup Final under Gullit and finishing 7th with Roeder as caretaker ?

 

For the record, I have said "they" must take responsibility for their own managerial appointments many times. "They" being the word to note.

 

Would you be happy if we reached the FA Cup Final while finishing midway in the league next season, or finishing 7th and qualifying for europe ie is that "failure" or relatively successful ?

[The Fish 9340]

you mean reaching an FA Cup Final under Gullit and finishing 7th with Roeder as caretaker ?

 

For the record, I have said "they" must take responsibility for their own managerial appointments many times. "They" being the word to note.

 

Would you be happy if we reached the FA Cup Final while finishing midway in the league next season, or finishing 7th and qualifying for europe ie is that "failure" or relatively successful ?

 

I mean the steady and inexorable decline from a team challenging for the title into a side that flirted with relegation within 3 seasons and so on and so forth.

 

I think we've all been grateful for Shepherd and Hall's successes, but iut seems your view of their days are rose tinted beyond simple nostalgia. You reel off cliched factoids without balancing your view with the horrific choices that put us down this path.

 

put it this way, if Hall and Shepherd had been better stewards (with an eye on the long term future of the club), we wouldn't have been available to be bought by the abortion of an owner we have now.

 

I know there's no point in this "debate" because you cherry pick points from posts to hold truck with and dismiss the rest of the post because it doesn't sit well in your constructed world.

[LeazesMag 0]

you mean reaching an FA Cup Final under Gullit and finishing 7th with Roeder as caretaker ?

 

For the record, I have said "they" must take responsibility for their own managerial appointments many times. "They" being the word to note.

 

Would you be happy if we reached the FA Cup Final while finishing midway in the league next season, or finishing 7th and qualifying for europe ie is that "failure" or relatively successful ?

 

I mean the steady and inexorable decline from a team challenging for the title into a side that flirted with relegation within 3 seasons and so on and so forth.

 

I think we've all been grateful for Shepherd and Hall's successes, but iut seems your view of their days are rose tinted beyond simple nostalgia. You reel off cliched factoids without balancing your view with the horrific choices that put us down this path.

 

put it this way, if Hall and Shepherd had been better stewards (with an eye on the long term future of the club), we wouldn't have been available to be bought by the abortion of an owner we have now.

 

I know there's no point in this "debate" because you cherry pick points from posts to hold truck with and dismiss the rest of the post because it doesn't sit well in your constructed world.

 

what a heap of shite.

 

Failed flotatation attempt in 1991 where they couldn't even raise 1.25m quid ........ then left it for sale to anybody who wanted it for what price in the end ?

 

And you say I'm cherry picking

[Craig 6368]

Where in this thread am I blaming Shepherd? All I've done is pointed out your blindingly obvious mistake.

 

Get back on track man!

 

I'm on track. Tell us when the Halls had over 50% ?

 

I already have done if you read the thread. Of course, if you don't believe that to be true, you can always point out what respective percentages Hall, Shepherd & Hall Jnr held prior to April 1997.

 

Bet you don't though.

 

 

I saw that, did the Halls have over 50% between that period ? If so, when did they reduce their holding ? And in any case, as I have pointed out to you - which we agree - Keegan was the person who was behind the rise of the club and the 3 people who appointed him are the ones who should take the credit for doing that too.

 

I can't see what you are arguing about here, unless you just want to argue with me.

 

This isn't about who you, I or anyone else for that matter thinks was behind the rise of the club. Nor am I 'fancying a go' or 'needled' by you.

 

You made a statement which was wholly untrue. There's no need for you to lead it into the same old debate that you've had countless times on here with others so I fail to see why you are trying to do so.

 

As for when they reduced their holding... April 1997 surprisingly enough

 

They reduced their holding from over 50% to around 30% ? Why ?

 

Fair enough if that is correct, but I still don't get your point ? The only point being that you are maybe trying to pin all the blame on Shepherd for the last few years [ignoring the previous 12 or so and not including the 7th top finish] when the Halls and Shepherd were running the club and nobody had a majority shareholding.

 

This isn't about bringing up the same old argument either

 

You're reading waaaaaaaaaaay too much into my post. Pointless explaining further when your not listening. I'm finished with this one LM.

[Gejon 2]

So they were both given a chance, made some mistakes and enjoyed some success.

 

Good stuff.

 

Yeah the Rangers and Inter boards sat down and said "Yeah we'll give some dopey cunt a chance"...Everyone agreed and the meetings were closed.

 

You stupid fuck.

 

 

Ah sorry I didn't realise Hodgson started out at Inter and McLeish at Rangers, my bad.

 

You stupid fuck.

[Gejon 2]

Oh I forgot the wink.

[Park Life 71]

Oh I forgot the wink.

 

Cause your brains fell out when you lost weight.

 

The point is that you can have an average/poor squad if it is compensated by a highly experienced or 'successful' manger, or you can have it the other way round, a good squad and young/newish manager....One cancels the other out to an extent as was the case at Inter and Birmingham and as is now the case at Fulham (although I'd argue most of their players are better than ours)...But you can't get away with having both ie AN INEXPERIENCED MANAGER AND A POOR SQUAD.

Edited May 3, 2010 by Park Life

[Gejon 2]

Glen Roeder finished 7th

[Park Life 71]

Glen Roeder finished 7th

 

Back to the future.

 

Err the player Roeder had available.

 

1 Republic of Ireland GK Shay Given

2 Republic of Ireland DF Stephen Carr

4 Peru MF Nolberto Solano

5 Turkey MF Emre Belözoğlu

6 France DF Jean-Alain Boumsong (till August 2006)

7 Spain FW Albert Luque

8 England MF Kieron Dyer

9 Nigeria FW Obafemi Martins

10 England FW Michael Owen

11 Republic of Ireland MF Damien Duff

12 England GK Steve Harper

14 France MF Charles N'Zogbia

15 Italy FW Giuseppe Rossi

15 United States DF Oguchi Onyewu

16 England MF James Milner

17 England MF Scott Parker

18 Australia DF Craig Moore

19 England DF Titus Bramble

 

No. Position Player

20 France FW Antoine Sibierski

 

22 England MF Nicky Butt

23 England FW Shola Ameobi

27 England DF Steven Taylor

 

39 England FW Andrew Carroll

40 Netherlands GK Tim Krul

Edited May 3, 2010 by Park Life

[Gejon 2]

Glen Roeder finished 7th

 

Back to the future.

 

Err the player Roeder had available.

 

1 Republic of Ireland GK Shay Given

2 Republic of Ireland DF Stephen Carr

4 Peru MF Nolberto Solano

5 Turkey MF Emre Belözoğlu

6 France DF Jean-Alain Boumsong (till August 2006)

7 Spain FW Albert Luque

8 England MF Kieron Dyer

9 Nigeria FW Obafemi Martins

10 England FW Michael Owen

11 Republic of Ireland MF Damien Duff

12 England GK Steve Harper

14 France MF Charles N'Zogbia

15 Italy FW Giuseppe Rossi

15 United States DF Oguchi Onyewu

16 England MF James Milner

17 England MF Scott Parker

18 Australia DF Craig Moore

19 England DF Titus Bramble

 

No. Position Player

20 France FW Antoine Sibierski

 

22 England MF Nicky Butt

23 England FW Shola Ameobi

27 England DF Steven Taylor

 

39 England FW Andrew Carroll

40 Netherlands GK Tim Krul

 

Some decent players in there, some really poor though, that defence is awful!

[khay 8]

Still can't believe we had Rossi on our books.

[Park Life 71]

Still can't believe we had Rossi on our books.

 

[ChezGiven 0]

Anyone read Simon Bird's online article about us today? Apparently there was an apology issued in the Sunday Times yesterday making it clear that "Ashley did not promise to spend 25m on transfers as has been reported".

 

Could mean anything but not encouraging. Anyone see the ST?

[Sonatine 10178]

There was an apology in yesterdays NOTW about last weeks Director of Football story, basically saying it was a load of bollocks. Which they probably knew when they printed it

[Andrew 4297]

Still can't believe we had Rossi on our books.

 

was about to say, wish we'd have kept hold of him

 

wish he was given more playing time while he was here too actually

[Tooj 17]

Still can't believe we had Rossi on our books.

 

was about to say, wish we'd have kept hold of him

 

wish he was given more playing time while he was here too actually

Rossi was terrible when he was here. Although that was mainly due to Roeder's long-ball tactics.

[Andrew 4297]

Still can't believe we had Rossi on our books.

 

was about to say, wish we'd have kept hold of him

 

wish he was given more playing time while he was here too actually

Rossi was terrible when he was here. Although that was mainly due to Roeder's long-ball tactics.

 

well...then I wish we'd had a manager who played better football too

 

I still do

[Guest alex]

Still can't believe we had Rossi on our books.

 

was about to say, wish we'd have kept hold of him

 

wish he was given more playing time while he was here too actually

Rossi was terrible when he was here. Although that was mainly due to Roeder's long-ball tactics.

I thought he showed some nice touches etc. but like you say, we didn't exactly utilise him properly.