Craig 6301 Posted January 8, 2006 Share Posted January 8, 2006 I haven't come across anybody, anywhere, who hasn't acknowledged the mistake by FS in the appointment of Souness. Craig, why do you keep banging on as though nobody is admitting this? The responsiblity for team affairs belongs with the manager. It is the manager who either gets it right or gets it wrong. Souness has got it wrong all on his own, the responsibility is his. As said above, FS fcuked up by appointing him. So what now, Craig? Why does this make FS responsible for all of the duff decisions made by the manager? How would people react if FS appointed a manager, but then it became known he stuck his nose into everything going on, and wouldn't allow the manager to actually manage? That would make him a really shit Chairman in my eyes. Q. Have we ever had a decent team with FS as Chairman? 76129[/snapback] Certain people won't have a wrong word said about Shepherd - never said it was you.... 76362[/snapback] Struggling, I see. 76368[/snapback] Not at all - just can't be arsed re-iterating what I've already said more than once for the benefit of someone who obviously chooses to read selectively.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6301 Posted January 8, 2006 Share Posted January 8, 2006 Course our chairman makes no input whatsoever and the comments about the specific player that he makes to the press are naturally bullshit.... 76028[/snapback] 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] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted January 8, 2006 Author Share Posted January 8, 2006 Course our chairman makes no input whatsoever and the comments about the specific player that he makes to the press are naturally bullshit.... 76028[/snapback] 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads 0 Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 Course our chairman makes no input whatsoever and the comments about the specific player that he makes to the press are naturally bullshit.... 76028[/snapback] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6301 Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 What's the point, you'll only read what you want to read anyway.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocChip 0 Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 Course our chairman makes no input whatsoever and the comments about the specific player that he makes to the press are naturally bullshit.... 76028[/snapback] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted January 9, 2006 Author Share Posted January 9, 2006 (edited) Course our chairman makes no input whatsoever and the comments about the specific player that he makes to the press are naturally bullshit.... 76028[/snapback] 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. Edited January 9, 2006 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 Do 3 bad appointments make Shepherd a bad chairman? Leaving out all his other embarrassing moments/mistakes as chariman that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17743 Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 Do 3 bad appointments make Shepherd a bad chairman? Leaving out all his other embarrassing moments/mistakes as chariman that is. 76442[/snapback] For me only one was completely predictable, with one being likely (Gullit). I do think though that Shepherd seems to have very little knowledge about the game of football (although he is OK on the financial side), and his PR gaffs are the stuff of legends. I was reading in the back of the program how Shepherd likes to help small teams like Mansfield out - right, if you say so Freddie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 Do 3 bad appointments make Shepherd a bad chairman? Leaving out all his other embarrassing moments/mistakes as chariman that is. 76442[/snapback] For me only one was completely predictable, with one being likely (Gullit). I do think though that Shepherd seems to have very little knowledge about the game of football (although he is OK on the financial side), and his PR gaffs are the stuff of legends. I was reading in the back of the program how Shepherd likes to help small teams like Mansfield out - right, if you say so Freddie. 76446[/snapback] Predictable or not, he's appointed 4 managers with only SBR being any good. If Souness bought four players and 3 were shit, quite rightly, he'd be getting stick. I've got time for Shepherd as he backs his managers but to suggest that he's only made one mistake, i.e. appoint Souness, is a bit wide of the mark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17743 Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 Do 3 bad appointments make Shepherd a bad chairman? Leaving out all his other embarrassing moments/mistakes as chariman that is. 76442[/snapback] For me only one was completely predictable, with one being likely (Gullit). I do think though that Shepherd seems to have very little knowledge about the game of football (although he is OK on the financial side), and his PR gaffs are the stuff of legends. I was reading in the back of the program how Shepherd likes to help small teams like Mansfield out - right, if you say so Freddie. 76446[/snapback] Predictable or not, he's appointed 4 managers with only SBR being any good. If Souness bought four players and 3 were shit, quite rightly, he'd be getting stick. I've got time for Shepherd as he backs his managers but to suggest that he's only made one mistake, i.e. appoint Souness, is a bit wide of the mark. 76452[/snapback] True, I was just pre-empting LM. Anyway, for me the appointment of Souness, and the whole way the sorry affair was handled, was such gross incompetence that his position at the club is rightly questionable now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetleftpeg 0 Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 On Saturday a bloke I go to the match with reckons Shepherd contacted Robson last week to privately apologise to him for the sacking. Robson has said he'll accept it only if it becomes a public apology. Berb to return? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17743 Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 On Saturday a bloke I go to the match with reckons Shepherd contacted Robson last week to privately apologise to him for the sacking. Robson has said he'll accept it only if it becomes a public apology. Berb to return? 76462[/snapback] Never go back, we need to go forward - somehow. I'd be amazed if SBR came back, and not very happy about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo 133 Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 On Saturday a bloke I go to the match with reckons Shepherd contacted Robson last week to privately apologise to him for the sacking. Robson has said he'll accept it only if it becomes a public apology. Berb to return? 76462[/snapback] Never go back, we need to go forward - somehow. I'd be amazed if SBR came back, and not very happy about it. 76468[/snapback] Agreed, Robson was sacked at the wrong time, but for all the right reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 Do 3 bad appointments make Shepherd a bad chairman? Leaving out all his other embarrassing moments/mistakes as chariman that is. 76442[/snapback] For me only one was completely predictable, with one being likely (Gullit). I do think though that Shepherd seems to have very little knowledge about the game of football (although he is OK on the financial side), and his PR gaffs are the stuff of legends. I was reading in the back of the program how Shepherd likes to help small teams like Mansfield out - right, if you say so Freddie. 76446[/snapback] Predictable or not, he's appointed 4 managers with only SBR being any good. If Souness bought four players and 3 were shit, quite rightly, he'd be getting stick. I've got time for Shepherd as he backs his managers but to suggest that he's only made one mistake, i.e. appoint Souness, is a bit wide of the mark. 76452[/snapback] Even more worryingly, of the ones he has appointed, all of them have won trophies at other clubs and have a successful track record in management. Until they get here. Not saying thats proof conclusive that that's Fat Fred's fault, but I think it's indicative. Personally I think the reason for our underachievement since Shepherd (who it has to be conceded has made (our) cash available to managers) is to do with lack of professionalism. The lack of professionalism at the club starts at the very top with the chairman and permeates down from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17743 Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 Do 3 bad appointments make Shepherd a bad chairman? Leaving out all his other embarrassing moments/mistakes as chariman that is. 76442[/snapback] For me only one was completely predictable, with one being likely (Gullit). I do think though that Shepherd seems to have very little knowledge about the game of football (although he is OK on the financial side), and his PR gaffs are the stuff of legends. I was reading in the back of the program how Shepherd likes to help small teams like Mansfield out - right, if you say so Freddie. 76446[/snapback] Predictable or not, he's appointed 4 managers with only SBR being any good. If Souness bought four players and 3 were shit, quite rightly, he'd be getting stick. I've got time for Shepherd as he backs his managers but to suggest that he's only made one mistake, i.e. appoint Souness, is a bit wide of the mark. 76452[/snapback] Even more worryingly, of the ones he has appointed, all of them have won trophies at other clubs and have a successful track record in management. Until they get here. Not saying thats proof conclusive that that's Fat Fred's fault, but I think it's indicative. Personally I think the reason for our underachievement since Shepherd (who it has to be conceded has made (our) cash available to managers) is to do with lack of professionalism. The lack of professionalism at the club starts at the very top with the chairman and permeates down from there. 76472[/snapback] But Souness's track record in management is very poor overall, and anyone who had done any background research into Gullit would have known he was a grade A twat. I think the problems have resulted because of the poor choice in managers. Personally I think Dalglish wasn't given long enough (panic sacked by Shepherd, admittedly), and Robson did have some success (without winning anything), but was ultimately too long in the tooth. Just because Shepherd is a constant in this, does not make him a cause. I have heard the same argument being used against Shearer - which imo is bullshit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6301 Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 I guess we've fuelled this thread up for a good 30+ pages once HTL & LM get reading..... The keyboards those two must get through...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 (edited) I guess we've fuelled this thread up for a good 30+ pages once HTL & LM get reading..... The keyboards those two must get through...... 76483[/snapback] They're the same person though aren't they? Edited January 9, 2006 by alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6301 Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 I guess we've fuelled this thread up for a good 30+ pages once HTL & LM get reading..... The keyboards those two must get through...... 76483[/snapback] They're the same person though aren't they? 76486[/snapback] So I'm led to believe... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17743 Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 I guess we've fuelled this thread up for a good 30+ pages once HTL & LM get reading..... The keyboards those two must get through...... 76483[/snapback] They're the same person though aren't they? 76486[/snapback] So am I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 Do 3 bad appointments make Shepherd a bad chairman? Leaving out all his other embarrassing moments/mistakes as chariman that is. 76442[/snapback] For me only one was completely predictable, with one being likely (Gullit). I do think though that Shepherd seems to have very little knowledge about the game of football (although he is OK on the financial side), and his PR gaffs are the stuff of legends. I was reading in the back of the program how Shepherd likes to help small teams like Mansfield out - right, if you say so Freddie. 76446[/snapback] Predictable or not, he's appointed 4 managers with only SBR being any good. If Souness bought four players and 3 were shit, quite rightly, he'd be getting stick. I've got time for Shepherd as he backs his managers but to suggest that he's only made one mistake, i.e. appoint Souness, is a bit wide of the mark. 76452[/snapback] Even more worryingly, of the ones he has appointed, all of them have won trophies at other clubs and have a successful track record in management. Until they get here. Not saying thats proof conclusive that that's Fat Fred's fault, but I think it's indicative. Personally I think the reason for our underachievement since Shepherd (who it has to be conceded has made (our) cash available to managers) is to do with lack of professionalism. The lack of professionalism at the club starts at the very top with the chairman and permeates down from there. 76472[/snapback] But Souness's track record in management is very poor overall, and anyone who had done any background research into Gullit would have known he was a grade A twat. I think the problems have resulted because of the poor choice in managers. Personally I think Dalglish wasn't given long enough (panic sacked by Shepherd, admittedly), and Robson did have some success (without winning anything), but was ultimately too long in the tooth. Just because Shepherd is a constant in this, does not make him a cause. I have heard the same argument being used against Shearer - which imo is bullshit! 76480[/snapback] It might be oversimplifying things somewhat, but I would characterise pre-Shepherd failure as the result of under-investment and post Shepherd failure as the result of a lack of professionalism. The Hall/Keegan era I discount from that tiemline as I think it was so exceptional and our failure to land the big one then was due to a lack of experience/naivety etc etc. The fans (rightfully) moan about the players attitudes/off field behaviour, but why are we surprised when we see the man at the very top of the pile setting the example he does. When he's not in brothels he's slagging the fans. When he's not coming out with outlandish/disrespectful idiotic PR soundbites he's undermining the manager and buying players himself.....it's just a farce tbh. I watched Liverpool the other night in the FA Cup-one of the best ties I've seen, a brilliant advert for football and a credit to both teams involved. Amazing stuff yet a part of me was gutted because I knew you never see that from our lot. Basically I believe that comeback (and the one in Istanbul last May) all owed to the attitude of the players and the respect/reverence they have for that club. It's not like they have better/more fans or are paid any more than our lot, they just KNOW the standards that apply and that certain performances are unacceptable. I think it's in the fabric of that club-the same applies to Man Ure and Arse. It certainly isnt in ours and as long as the likes of FF are at the apex I cant honestly see why we should expect that to change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jusoda Kid 1 Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 tiemline Is that the length of time you can own a tie for before it go's out of fashion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17743 Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 Do 3 bad appointments make Shepherd a bad chairman? Leaving out all his other embarrassing moments/mistakes as chariman that is. 76442[/snapback] For me only one was completely predictable, with one being likely (Gullit). I do think though that Shepherd seems to have very little knowledge about the game of football (although he is OK on the financial side), and his PR gaffs are the stuff of legends. I was reading in the back of the program how Shepherd likes to help small teams like Mansfield out - right, if you say so Freddie. 76446[/snapback] Predictable or not, he's appointed 4 managers with only SBR being any good. If Souness bought four players and 3 were shit, quite rightly, he'd be getting stick. I've got time for Shepherd as he backs his managers but to suggest that he's only made one mistake, i.e. appoint Souness, is a bit wide of the mark. 76452[/snapback] Even more worryingly, of the ones he has appointed, all of them have won trophies at other clubs and have a successful track record in management. Until they get here. Not saying thats proof conclusive that that's Fat Fred's fault, but I think it's indicative. Personally I think the reason for our underachievement since Shepherd (who it has to be conceded has made (our) cash available to managers) is to do with lack of professionalism. The lack of professionalism at the club starts at the very top with the chairman and permeates down from there. 76472[/snapback] But Souness's track record in management is very poor overall, and anyone who had done any background research into Gullit would have known he was a grade A twat. I think the problems have resulted because of the poor choice in managers. Personally I think Dalglish wasn't given long enough (panic sacked by Shepherd, admittedly), and Robson did have some success (without winning anything), but was ultimately too long in the tooth. Just because Shepherd is a constant in this, does not make him a cause. I have heard the same argument being used against Shearer - which imo is bullshit! 76480[/snapback] It might be oversimplifying things somewhat, but I would characterise pre-Shepherd failure as the result of under-investment and post Shepherd failure as the result of a lack of professionalism. The Hall/Keegan era I discount from that tiemline as I think it was so exceptional and our failure to land the big one then was due to a lack of experience/naivety etc etc. The fans (rightfully) moan about the players attitudes/off field behaviour, but why are we surprised when we see the man at the very top of the pile setting the example he does. When he's not in brothels he's slagging the fans. When he's not coming out with outlandish/disrespectful idiotic PR soundbites he's undermining the manager and buying players himself.....it's just a farce tbh. I watched Liverpool the other night in the FA Cup-one of the best ties I've seen, a brilliant advert for football and a credit to both teams involved. Amazing stuff yet a part of me was gutted because I knew you never see that from our lot. Basically I believe that comeback (and the one in Istanbul last May) all owed to the attitude of the players and the respect/reverence they have for that club. It's not like they have better/more fans or are paid any more than our lot, they just KNOW the standards that apply and that certain performances are unacceptable. I think it's in the fabric of that club-the same applies to Man Ure and Arse. It certainly isnt in ours and as long as the likes of FF are at the apex I cant honestly see why we should expect that to change. 76489[/snapback] That's a pretty reasonable viewpoint to be fair; I hope you're wrong but I fear you might not be. Still, I hope that the employment of a truely great manager might one day be our salvation - like Shankly at Liverpool, but I'm not overly optimistic. Not being nasty about this, but looking at Shepherd, it's difficult to imagine he can last much longer health-wise. But that would still leave the most detestable character in all this - Douglas Hall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6301 Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 Do 3 bad appointments make Shepherd a bad chairman? Leaving out all his other embarrassing moments/mistakes as chariman that is. 76442[/snapback] For me only one was completely predictable, with one being likely (Gullit). I do think though that Shepherd seems to have very little knowledge about the game of football (although he is OK on the financial side), and his PR gaffs are the stuff of legends. I was reading in the back of the program how Shepherd likes to help small teams like Mansfield out - right, if you say so Freddie. 76446[/snapback] Predictable or not, he's appointed 4 managers with only SBR being any good. If Souness bought four players and 3 were shit, quite rightly, he'd be getting stick. I've got time for Shepherd as he backs his managers but to suggest that he's only made one mistake, i.e. appoint Souness, is a bit wide of the mark. 76452[/snapback] Even more worryingly, of the ones he has appointed, all of them have won trophies at other clubs and have a successful track record in management. Until they get here. Not saying thats proof conclusive that that's Fat Fred's fault, but I think it's indicative. Personally I think the reason for our underachievement since Shepherd (who it has to be conceded has made (our) cash available to managers) is to do with lack of professionalism. The lack of professionalism at the club starts at the very top with the chairman and permeates down from there. 76472[/snapback] But Souness's track record in management is very poor overall, and anyone who had done any background research into Gullit would have known he was a grade A twat. I think the problems have resulted because of the poor choice in managers. Personally I think Dalglish wasn't given long enough (panic sacked by Shepherd, admittedly), and Robson did have some success (without winning anything), but was ultimately too long in the tooth. Just because Shepherd is a constant in this, does not make him a cause. I have heard the same argument being used against Shearer - which imo is bullshit! 76480[/snapback] It might be oversimplifying things somewhat, but I would characterise pre-Shepherd failure as the result of under-investment and post Shepherd failure as the result of a lack of professionalism. The Hall/Keegan era I discount from that tiemline as I think it was so exceptional and our failure to land the big one then was due to a lack of experience/naivety etc etc. The fans (rightfully) moan about the players attitudes/off field behaviour, but why are we surprised when we see the man at the very top of the pile setting the example he does. When he's not in brothels he's slagging the fans. When he's not coming out with outlandish/disrespectful idiotic PR soundbites he's undermining the manager and buying players himself.....it's just a farce tbh. I watched Liverpool the other night in the FA Cup-one of the best ties I've seen, a brilliant advert for football and a credit to both teams involved. Amazing stuff yet a part of me was gutted because I knew you never see that from our lot. Basically I believe that comeback (and the one in Istanbul last May) all owed to the attitude of the players and the respect/reverence they have for that club. It's not like they have better/more fans or are paid any more than our lot, they just KNOW the standards that apply and that certain performances are unacceptable. I think it's in the fabric of that club-the same applies to Man Ure and Arse. It certainly isnt in ours and as long as the likes of FF are at the apex I cant honestly see why we should expect that to change. 76489[/snapback] I think many nails have been hit right on the head with that post - pretty much sums up how things are. Course two people will argue differently.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 Do 3 bad appointments make Shepherd a bad chairman? Leaving out all his other embarrassing moments/mistakes as chariman that is. 76442[/snapback] For me only one was completely predictable, with one being likely (Gullit). I do think though that Shepherd seems to have very little knowledge about the game of football (although he is OK on the financial side), and his PR gaffs are the stuff of legends. I was reading in the back of the program how Shepherd likes to help small teams like Mansfield out - right, if you say so Freddie. 76446[/snapback] Predictable or not, he's appointed 4 managers with only SBR being any good. If Souness bought four players and 3 were shit, quite rightly, he'd be getting stick. I've got time for Shepherd as he backs his managers but to suggest that he's only made one mistake, i.e. appoint Souness, is a bit wide of the mark. 76452[/snapback] Even more worryingly, of the ones he has appointed, all of them have won trophies at other clubs and have a successful track record in management. Until they get here. Not saying thats proof conclusive that that's Fat Fred's fault, but I think it's indicative. Personally I think the reason for our underachievement since Shepherd (who it has to be conceded has made (our) cash available to managers) is to do with lack of professionalism. The lack of professionalism at the club starts at the very top with the chairman and permeates down from there. 76472[/snapback] But Souness's track record in management is very poor overall, and anyone who had done any background research into Gullit would have known he was a grade A twat. I think the problems have resulted because of the poor choice in managers. Personally I think Dalglish wasn't given long enough (panic sacked by Shepherd, admittedly), and Robson did have some success (without winning anything), but was ultimately too long in the tooth. Just because Shepherd is a constant in this, does not make him a cause. I have heard the same argument being used against Shearer - which imo is bullshit! 76480[/snapback] It might be oversimplifying things somewhat, but I would characterise pre-Shepherd failure as the result of under-investment and post Shepherd failure as the result of a lack of professionalism. The Hall/Keegan era I discount from that tiemline as I think it was so exceptional and our failure to land the big one then was due to a lack of experience/naivety etc etc. The fans (rightfully) moan about the players attitudes/off field behaviour, but why are we surprised when we see the man at the very top of the pile setting the example he does. When he's not in brothels he's slagging the fans. When he's not coming out with outlandish/disrespectful idiotic PR soundbites he's undermining the manager and buying players himself.....it's just a farce tbh. I watched Liverpool the other night in the FA Cup-one of the best ties I've seen, a brilliant advert for football and a credit to both teams involved. Amazing stuff yet a part of me was gutted because I knew you never see that from our lot. Basically I believe that comeback (and the one in Istanbul last May) all owed to the attitude of the players and the respect/reverence they have for that club. It's not like they have better/more fans or are paid any more than our lot, they just KNOW the standards that apply and that certain performances are unacceptable. I think it's in the fabric of that club-the same applies to Man Ure and Arse. It certainly isnt in ours and as long as the likes of FF are at the apex I cant honestly see why we should expect that to change. 76489[/snapback] That's a pretty reasonable viewpoint to be fair; I hope you're wrong but I fear you might not be. Still, I hope that the employment of a truely great manager might one day be our salvation - like Shankly at Liverpool, but I'm not overly optimistic. Not being nasty about this, but looking at Shepherd, it's difficult to imagine he can last much longer health-wise. But that would still leave the most detestable character in all this - Douglas Hall. 76497[/snapback] Aye, I should have qualified all of that rubbish by saying I hope I'm wrong-cos I do- I'd love to be proved wrong. I'm obviously hoping for a world class manager too but I cant help but think you need the whole infrastructure to be right and I do reckon Shepherds attitude undermines us as a club. Agree re Douglas Hall an all. Doesnt bear thinking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now