Luque

[Jusoda Kid 1]

Luque = Marcelino mark II

[Dr Gloom 19738]

Luque = Marcelino mark II

100393[/snapback]

 

sadly it's looking that way

[Howaythelads 0]

I'd actually weigh up the best of the available managers plus any managers currently at clubs who we could realistically attract rather than place set criteria. You can answer my question if you like Leazes.

100369[/snapback]

 

Measured against what criteria? How do you determine "the best of...."

 

Here's a clue.......track record, perhaps?

[Howaythelads 0]

LM said........

"So what is YOUR criteria for choosing a manager Alex ?"

 

In direct reply, Alex said........

"What have we won under Shepherd's stewardship and what level of stability and of long-term planning has he displayed?"

 

Hmm.......

100342[/snapback]

 

Of course neither LM or yourself have ever failed to respond to a question that's been put, have you HTL?

100344[/snapback]

 

I don't duck questions, Craig.

100367[/snapback]

But you'll have a go at me for ducking them but not your mate.

100375[/snapback]

 

I'm happy to answer it.

 

In general, the manager, the man who is appointed and paid big wages to be responsible for team affairs takes the credit, and the blame when it goes wrong, for all players joining and leaving the club. That's because he makes the choices about who comes in and who leaves.

 

The Chairman gets the credit for making the money available for signings.

[LeazesMag 0]

LM said........

"So what is YOUR criteria for choosing a manager Alex ?"

 

In direct reply, Alex said........

"What have we won under Shepherd's stewardship and what level of stability and of long-term planning has he displayed?"

 

Hmm.......

100342[/snapback]

 

Of course neither LM or yourself have ever failed to respond to a question that's been put, have you HTL?

100344[/snapback]

 

I don't duck questions, Craig.

100367[/snapback]

 

Same here, questions like

 

Name me x amount of premiership chairman who have done a better and more ambitious job for their clubs than Shepherd, and show us how, thus qualifying your statement that he is "shit".

Edited February 24, 2006 by LeazesMag

[LeazesMag 0]

I'd actually weigh up the best of the available managers plus any managers currently at clubs who we could realistically attract rather than place set criteria. You can answer my question if you like Leazes.

100369[/snapback]

 

So do you not think that Dalglish and Gullit fitted the above criteria at the time ?

Unless you think they did a shit job with their previous clubs, thus sticking to the theory that Freddie can't appoint "good" managers .......

[LeazesMag 0]

Howay then Leazes, how come Shepherd takes the credit for signing Owen but Souness takes the blame for signing Luque and Boumsong?

100377[/snapback]

 

Show me where I said this.....I also replied to gol earlier.....the answer is the same, Shepherd deserves massive credit for supplying his manager with the amount of money he has always done to buy all the players...however the judgement of professional performance good and bad lies at the feet of the football team manager.... now Alex you see I dont duck questions ..

 

So, name me all the loads of managers that have done better for their clubs than Fred, thus qualifying him as "shit"

Edited February 24, 2006 by LeazesMag

[Craig 6287]

LM said........

"So what is YOUR criteria for choosing a manager Alex ?"

 

In direct reply, Alex said........

"What have we won under Shepherd's stewardship and what level of stability and of long-term planning has he displayed?"

 

Hmm.......

100342[/snapback]

 

Of course neither LM or yourself have ever failed to respond to a question that's been put, have you HTL?

100344[/snapback]

 

I don't duck questions, Craig.

100367[/snapback]

 

Same here, questions like

 

Name me x amount of premiership chairman who have done a better and more ambitious job for their clubs than Shepherd, and show us how, thus qualifying your statement that he is "shit".

100467[/snapback]

 

How many more times are people going to have to point out to you that comparing Shepherd with some of the other chairmen in the league doesn't absolve him from his weaknesses?

 

For the record, had Shepherd taken over from McKeag back in 1991, then I'd be in agreement with you. He didn't, he took over from Hall and, when you compare the advances he made with the club with what Shepherd has done, you have to conclude that we're not in a better position since SJH stepped down.

 

Any rich businessman can throw money at managers from transfers - the measure of success is how far the club advance in the time they are chairman. In short:

 

- SJH took the club from bottom of old Div2 to 2nd in Premiership

- FS has taken the club from 2nd in Premiership to around 14th

 

then compare him with the likes of Gartside, Whelan, Gibson - all who've turned their respective clubs around since they've been at the helm.

 

You can try blaming our decline on Souness and his signings. The fact of the matter is, Shepherd hired Souness and Shepherd agreed to the signings of said players. He is ultimately responsible for why were are not in the same position as we were when he took over.

[LeazesMag 0]

LM said........

"So what is YOUR criteria for choosing a manager Alex ?"

 

In direct reply, Alex said........

"What have we won under Shepherd's stewardship and what level of stability and of long-term planning has he displayed?"

 

Hmm.......

100342[/snapback]

 

Of course neither LM or yourself have ever failed to respond to a question that's been put, have you HTL?

100344[/snapback]

 

I don't duck questions, Craig.

100367[/snapback]

 

Same here, questions like

 

Name me x amount of premiership chairman who have done a better and more ambitious job for their clubs than Shepherd, and show us how, thus qualifying your statement that he is "shit".

100467[/snapback]

 

How many more times are people going to have to point out to you that comparing Shepherd with some of the other chairmen in the league doesn't absolve him from his weaknesses?

 

For the record, had Shepherd taken over from McKeag back in 1991, then I'd be in agreement with you. He didn't, he took over from Hall and, when you compare the advances he made with the club with what Shepherd has done, you have to conclude that we're not in a better position since SJH stepped down.

 

Any rich businessman can throw money at managers from transfers - the measure of success is how far the club advance in the time they are chairman. In short:

 

- SJH took the club from bottom of old Div2 to 2nd in Premiership

- FS has taken the club from 2nd in Premiership to around 14th

 

then compare him with the likes of Gartside, Whelan, Gibson - all who've turned their respective clubs around since they've been at the helm.

 

You can try blaming our decline on Souness and his signings. The fact of the matter is, Shepherd hired Souness and Shepherd agreed to the signings of said players. He is ultimately responsible for why were are not in the same position as we were when he took over.

100490[/snapback]

 

Gartside ??????? You are joking....he appointed a good manager, like we did with Bobby Robson, no more no less.

 

Same with Whelan. These 2 blokes running a big time club with real ambition, as compared to where we were before Shepherd and the Halls, is a vastly different proposition to over achieving temporarily with a small time club with a handful of fans.

 

As for Shepherd vetoing signings, if he did that it would indeed make him a SHIT chairman, and no manager worth their salt would accept it. Souness may be many things but he is nobodys patsy and to suggest that he would put up with any chairman interfering with his job is, to be honest, stretching hype and rumour over the limit, its not even taking the piss its absurd.

[Jusoda Kid 1]

Get the Hearts Chairman in i say

[Craig 6287]

LM said........

"So what is YOUR criteria for choosing a manager Alex ?"

 

In direct reply, Alex said........

"What have we won under Shepherd's stewardship and what level of stability and of long-term planning has he displayed?"

 

Hmm.......

100342[/snapback]

 

Of course neither LM or yourself have ever failed to respond to a question that's been put, have you HTL?

100344[/snapback]

 

I don't duck questions, Craig.

100367[/snapback]

 

Same here, questions like

 

Name me x amount of premiership chairman who have done a better and more ambitious job for their clubs than Shepherd, and show us how, thus qualifying your statement that he is "shit".

100467[/snapback]

 

How many more times are people going to have to point out to you that comparing Shepherd with some of the other chairmen in the league doesn't absolve him from his weaknesses?

 

For the record, had Shepherd taken over from McKeag back in 1991, then I'd be in agreement with you. He didn't, he took over from Hall and, when you compare the advances he made with the club with what Shepherd has done, you have to conclude that we're not in a better position since SJH stepped down.

 

Any rich businessman can throw money at managers from transfers - the measure of success is how far the club advance in the time they are chairman. In short:

 

- SJH took the club from bottom of old Div2 to 2nd in Premiership

- FS has taken the club from 2nd in Premiership to around 14th

 

then compare him with the likes of Gartside, Whelan, Gibson - all who've turned their respective clubs around since they've been at the helm.

 

You can try blaming our decline on Souness and his signings. The fact of the matter is, Shepherd hired Souness and Shepherd agreed to the signings of said players. He is ultimately responsible for why were are not in the same position as we were when he took over.

100490[/snapback]

 

Gartside ??????? You are joking....he appointed a good manager, like we did with Bobby Robson, no more no less.

 

Same with Whelan. These 2 blokes running a big time club with real ambition, as compared to where we were before Shepherd and the Halls, is a vastly different proposition to over achieving temporarily with a small time club with a handful of fans.

 

As for Shepherd vetoing signings, if he did that it would indeed make him a SHIT chairman, and no manager worth their salt would accept it. Souness may be many things but he is nobodys patsy and to suggest that he would put up with any chairman interfering with his job is, to be honest, stretching hype and rumour over the limit, its not even taking the piss its absurd.

100497[/snapback]

 

 

Indeed! They appointed good managers but you have to look beyond that. When it all comes down to it, the only way you can judge how good a chairman is to measure how far the club has come since they've taken the reigns. Newcastle United are indisputedly in a worse position than they were before Shepherd took over from a footballing POV - Bolton and Wigan on the contrary, are in a much better position.

 

As for you second point, if I (and I dare say most people) were in Shepherd's position, I'd want to know where my money is being spent - what's more he without doubt does! Stop kidding yourself man, Souness went to Fred, said he wanted to sign Amdy Faye from Portsmouth and Shepherd gave the go ahead. What do you think he's been doing? Giving him blank signed cheques? That would make him an even bigger liability!

[Howaythelads 0]

Indeed! They appointed good managers but you have to look beyond that. When it all comes down to it, the only way you can judge how good a chairman is to measure how far the club has come since they've taken the reigns. Newcastle United are indisputedly in a worse position than they were before Shepherd took over from a footballing POV - Bolton and Wigan on the contrary, are in a much better position.

 

As for you second point, if I (and I dare say most people) were in Shepherd's position, I'd want to know where my money is being spent - what's more he without doubt does! Stop kidding yourself man, Souness went to Fred, said he wanted to sign Amdy Faye from Portsmouth and Shepherd gave the go ahead. What do you think he's been doing? Giving him blank signed cheques? That would make him an even bigger liability!

100575[/snapback]

 

Errr aye. What's your point, Craig? It seems to be common knowledge that a football manager these days tells the Board who he wants to buy and the Board then set about trying to bring those players to the club. Has anyone said anything different? The manager chooses the players though, and that's how it should be.

 

Are you suggesting the club employs a team manager, who is supposed to be expert in football matters but then the board veto his decisions because they think they know more about football than the manager they've employed? If Fred stuck his oar in like this and made footballing decisions instead of the manager, everybody in the football world would be slagging him off relentlessly for it. He'd be correctly labelled a shit chairman in that scenario.

 

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. Should be your signature, mate.

[Craig 6287]

Surely a chairman should be studying reports from the scouts who have been watching the players we're interested in signing??

 

And if not, then why the fuck are we employing them in the first place

 

(same sort of idea as a capex report in an everyday business...)

[LeazesMag 0]

LM said........

"So what is YOUR criteria for choosing a manager Alex ?"

 

In direct reply, Alex said........

"What have we won under Shepherd's stewardship and what level of stability and of long-term planning has he displayed?"

 

Hmm.......

100342[/snapback]

 

Of course neither LM or yourself have ever failed to respond to a question that's been put, have you HTL?

100344[/snapback]

 

I don't duck questions, Craig.

100367[/snapback]

 

Same here, questions like

 

Name me x amount of premiership chairman who have done a better and more ambitious job for their clubs than Shepherd, and show us how, thus qualifying your statement that he is "shit".

100467[/snapback]

 

How many more times are people going to have to point out to you that comparing Shepherd with some of the other chairmen in the league doesn't absolve him from his weaknesses?

 

For the record, had Shepherd taken over from McKeag back in 1991, then I'd be in agreement with you. He didn't, he took over from Hall and, when you compare the advances he made with the club with what Shepherd has done, you have to conclude that we're not in a better position since SJH stepped down.

 

Any rich businessman can throw money at managers from transfers - the measure of success is how far the club advance in the time they are chairman. In short:

 

- SJH took the club from bottom of old Div2 to 2nd in Premiership

- FS has taken the club from 2nd in Premiership to around 14th

 

then compare him with the likes of Gartside, Whelan, Gibson - all who've turned their respective clubs around since they've been at the helm.

 

You can try blaming our decline on Souness and his signings. The fact of the matter is, Shepherd hired Souness and Shepherd agreed to the signings of said players. He is ultimately responsible for why were are not in the same position as we were when he took over.

100490[/snapback]

 

Gartside ??????? You are joking....he appointed a good manager, like we did with Bobby Robson, no more no less.

 

Same with Whelan. These 2 blokes running a big time club with real ambition, as compared to where we were before Shepherd and the Halls, is a vastly different proposition to over achieving temporarily with a small time club with a handful of fans.

 

As for Shepherd vetoing signings, if he did that it would indeed make him a SHIT chairman, and no manager worth their salt would accept it. Souness may be many things but he is nobodys patsy and to suggest that he would put up with any chairman interfering with his job is, to be honest, stretching hype and rumour over the limit, its not even taking the piss its absurd.

100497[/snapback]

 

 

Indeed! They appointed good managers but you have to look beyond that. When it all comes down to it, the only way you can judge how good a chairman is to measure how far the club has come since they've taken the reigns. Newcastle United are indisputedly in a worse position than they were before Shepherd took over from a footballing POV - Bolton and Wigan on the contrary, are in a much better position.

 

As for you second point, if I (and I dare say most people) were in Shepherd's position, I'd want to know where my money is being spent - what's more he without doubt does! Stop kidding yourself man, Souness went to Fred, said he wanted to sign Amdy Faye from Portsmouth and Shepherd gave the go ahead. What do you think he's been doing? Giving him blank signed cheques? That would make him an even bigger liability!

100575[/snapback]

 

I've looked down and saw HTL also picked out this bit, it caught my eye straight away for the same reason....of course he gives him the go ahead, thats why he employs him.....you haven't read the other reply have you Craig....the chairman relies on the managers footballing expertise, he backs him if he is good, so far as he can financially, and doesn't back him if he's a crap chairman.

 

Souness goes to his chairman and says to chairman he wants to buy a player for a small fee but in his opinion the player will be good value for money, whatever.

 

The chairman has the amount of money the club ask for and says yes to the deal.

This is how it is supposed to work ???? Do you think it doesn't work like this at ALL the well run clubs ???????? Of course it does.

 

Lastly HTL's suggestion for your signature is spot on mate.

 

Simple fact is mate, there are a canny few people who are just going to slag Fred off whatever he does, you expect him to spend 50m quid a season, and you still moan. You know that in the summer you are all going to moan like fuck that Fred doesn't have another 50m quid for the new manager ! Despite myself and others telling you EXACTLY the Souness reign would end like this, and you all still backed it to continue.

 

How about naming all the dozens of chairman who have done better for their clubs than Fred BTW, and I don't accept Whelan he's just got lucky - if he had 50,000 fickle fans demanding he find money every few months to buy international players he would sing a totally different tune, like a lot of them would.

 

Fact is, there are only about 3 or 4 chairman who have done more for their clubs and showed more ambition and ran more successful clubs than Fred. And this time he [and we] may get lucky, what would you say then because the new manager won't get any more cash than the others, there won't be any more there.

 

There isn't an Abramovic waiting to take over the club, the likeliehood of us getting a better chairman than Fred when he goes are slim, very slim.

 

I see Aston Villa are struggling to get the cash to buy Milner........now theres a big club run by a good chairman for you ..... just like we used to be once, when they were winning the European Cup.

Edited February 24, 2006 by LeazesMag

[LeazesMag 0]

Surely a chairman should be studying reports from the scouts who have been watching the players we're interested in signing??

 

And if not, then why the fuck are we employing them in the first place

 

(same sort of idea as a capex report in an everyday business...)

100582[/snapback]

 

No, thats the managers job to make those decisions

[Craig 6287]

Surely a chairman should be studying reports from the scouts who have been watching the players we're interested in signing??

 

And if not, then why the fuck are we employing them in the first place

 

(same sort of idea as a capex report in an everyday business...)

100582[/snapback]

 

No, thats the managers job to make those decisions

100591[/snapback]

 

Funny...

 

You see every business I've ever worked in, it's been the manager's position to propose a purchase and a director's to authorise it. The directors will not authorise a thing without seeing concrete justification.

 

Same in football!

[Howaythelads 0]

Surely a chairman should be studying reports from the scouts who have been watching the players we're interested in signing??

 

And if not, then why the fuck are we employing them in the first place

 

(same sort of idea as a capex report in an everyday business...)

100582[/snapback]

 

No, thats the managers job to make those decisions

100591[/snapback]

 

I saw this post of Craig's as so dumb it had to be a wind-up. Even Craig isn't capable of this level of stupidity. Gemmill, maybe.

[Gemmill 34184]

Surely a chairman should be studying reports from the scouts who have been watching the players we're interested in signing??

 

And if not, then why the fuck are we employing them in the first place

 

(same sort of idea as a capex report in an everyday business...)

100582[/snapback]

 

No, thats the managers job to make those decisions

100591[/snapback]

 

I saw this post of Craig's as so dumb it had to be a wind-up. Even Craig isn't capable of this level of stupidity. Gemmill, maybe.

100611[/snapback]

 

Right, I've had jolly well enough of this. Fisticuffs is the only way to resolve this sort of disagreement.

[peasepud 59]

It's not me that harps on about Shepherd, its those who keep insisting that one of the best chairman in the league, who most others wish they had, is shit.

 

Again - YOU tell me who is better, if he is shit that should be most of them ...

......

100150[/snapback]

 

Well Im no Shepherd hater but (and I cant be arsed to google the names of chairmen so I'll list the clubs).

 

Chelski, ManUre, Liverpool, Boro, Arse, Wigan.... are definites.

 

Add to that list the clubs that never do anything but dont have the cash we have yet at the same time manage to buy players and not make headlines because of the chairmans crass mouth and actions and your left with a list that contains all of the Premiership chairmen minus

 

Murray and Ellis.

[Gemmill 34184]

Surely a chairman should be studying reports from the scouts who have been watching the players we're interested in signing??

 

And if not, then why the fuck are we employing them in the first place

 

(same sort of idea as a capex report in an everyday business...)

100582[/snapback]

 

No, thats the managers job to make those decisions

100591[/snapback]

 

I saw this post of Craig's as so dumb it had to be a wind-up. Even Craig isn't capable of this level of stupidity. Gemmill, maybe.

100611[/snapback]

 

Right, I've had jolly well enough of this. Fisticuffs is the only way to resolve this sort of disagreement.

100615[/snapback]

 

And so it was...

 

http://www.grapheine.com/bombaytv/play_uk.php?id=798091

[Howaythelads 0]

Surely a chairman should be studying reports from the scouts who have been watching the players we're interested in signing??

 

And if not, then why the fuck are we employing them in the first place

 

(same sort of idea as a capex report in an everyday business...)

100582[/snapback]

 

No, thats the managers job to make those decisions

100591[/snapback]

 

I saw this post of Craig's as so dumb it had to be a wind-up. Even Craig isn't capable of this level of stupidity. Gemmill, maybe.

100611[/snapback]

 

Right, I've had jolly well enough of this. Fisticuffs is the only way to resolve this sort of disagreement.

100615[/snapback]

 

'Offering me out' again, I see. On a forum anarl, you sad bastard. Stop taking yourself so seriously is my advice.

[Gemmill 34184]

Surely a chairman should be studying reports from the scouts who have been watching the players we're interested in signing??

 

And if not, then why the fuck are we employing them in the first place

 

(same sort of idea as a capex report in an everyday business...)

100582[/snapback]

 

No, thats the managers job to make those decisions

100591[/snapback]

 

I saw this post of Craig's as so dumb it had to be a wind-up. Even Craig isn't capable of this level of stupidity. Gemmill, maybe.

100611[/snapback]

 

Right, I've had jolly well enough of this. Fisticuffs is the only way to resolve this sort of disagreement.

100615[/snapback]

 

'Offering me out' again, I see. On a forum anarl, you sad bastard. Stop taking yourself so seriously is my advice.

100621[/snapback]

 

I can't help myself. My military training just kicks in and I want to KILL KILL KILL.

[catmag 336]

Careful HTL. I've seen Gemmill wrestle with an Action Man and it wasn't pretty

[Gemmill 34184]

Careful HTL.  I've seen Gemmill wrestle with an Action Man and it wasn't pretty

100623[/snapback]

 

Snapped his head off IIRC.

[peasepud 59]

'Offering me out' again, I see. On a forum anarl, you sad bastard. Stop taking yourself so seriously is my advice. 

100621[/snapback]

 

Seriously fookin there like