Jump to content

Imagine the uproar


Recommended Posts

I didn't want to reply over there Alex...but if I did I would certainly make reference to the fact that you post on there despite slagging it off all the time...so maybe I've done you a favour by saving you from being hypocritical !!!

106568[/snapback]

 

Nobody could save Alex from that fate tbh. ;)

 

Leazes though, seriously you are obsessed.

 

Every way you choose to weight an argument as to what determines 'signs of success or progress' (and you've maneouevred considerably) has been addressed with examples of where we've been found wanting.

 

Most recently this has gone from 'how much more money etc etc' has Freddy pumped into the club than previous chairmen- because this has been addressed by compelling remarks that, by and large Freddy hasnt been the generator of the sort of cash that other chairmen havent had the luxury of, to remarks about how much further we've come than other comparable clubs-which has now been answered on several ocasions by compelling examples of how comparable and much 'smaller' clubs have actually won trophies where we've won nowt!

 

It's getting daft. And as for people not answering your points, dare I suggest it's become something to do with fatigue at the fact that you simply abandon an argument once its been defeated and start all over again with a completely new premise.

106575[/snapback]

 

I haven't maneouevred at all. My point is the same as its always been.

 

Shepherd is a good chairman, he is running the club well and enabling the club to compete for international players and is appointing managers with winning pedigrees and giving them the backing to succeed. This is what makes him good, because he is doing better than the vast majority of all the other big city clubs, and tapping the clubs resources better than all of our other chairman bar SJH in the last 50 years at least.

 

You, and NO ONE, can put forward any FACTS to prove anything in the above paragraph is anything but a true factual statement.

 

Anyone with any sense will basically see how he has pushed out the boat financially to strive for success, and no one can come up with any other criteria to guarantee the successful manager to win one of only 2 trophies than what is already being applied.

106616[/snapback]

 

LM's posts can be categorised in the same way that they name episodes of Friends. This is "The one where Leazes tells us all how good Shepherd is." He's also got "The one where Leazes tells us how good Bellamy is", "The one where Leazes tells us how crap Souness is" and " The one where Leazes makes something up and attributes it to whoever he's arguing with."

 

On General Chat he has "The one where everyone should get the death penalty."

 

I think that pretty much covers all of his posts tbh. :jester:

106629[/snapback]

 

well you are making that up ?

 

Or explain and show otherwise ?

 

I certainly didn't make up the fact that you backed Souness until the end, nor the fact you appear not to understand the financial implications of the chairman backing not just him but all of his managers, but particular the position Souness put us in with his reckless attitude towards shipping out and bringing in players.And the good running of the company, in comparison with the club in the past and all the other big city clubs.

 

Are you really an accountant ?

106643[/snapback]

 

"The one where Leazes lists a load of mistakes Shepherd has made/overseen and attributes them to me."

 

:jester:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 354
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I didn't want to reply over there Alex...but if I did I would certainly make reference to the fact that you post on there despite slagging it off all the time...so maybe I've done you a favour by saving you from being hypocritical !!!

106568[/snapback]

 

Nobody could save Alex from that fate tbh. :jester:

 

Leazes though, seriously you are obsessed.

 

Every way you choose to weight an argument as to what determines 'signs of success or progress' (and you've maneouevred considerably) has been addressed with examples of where we've been found wanting.

 

Most recently this has gone from 'how much more money etc etc' has Freddy pumped into the club than previous chairmen- because this has been addressed by compelling remarks that, by and large Freddy hasnt been the generator of the sort of cash that other chairmen havent had the luxury of, to remarks about how much further we've come than other comparable clubs-which has now been answered on several ocasions by compelling examples of how comparable and much 'smaller' clubs have actually won trophies where we've won nowt!

 

It's getting daft. And as for people not answering your points, dare I suggest it's become something to do with fatigue at the fact that you simply abandon an argument once its been defeated and start all over again with a completely new premise.

106575[/snapback]

 

I haven't maneouevred at all. My point is the same as its always been.

 

Shepherd is a good chairman, he is running the club well and enabling the club to compete for international players and is appointing managers with winning pedigrees and giving them the backing to succeed. This is what makes him good, because he is doing better than the vast majority of all the other big city clubs, and tapping the clubs resources better than all of our other chairman bar SJH in the last 50 years at least.

 

You, and NO ONE, can put forward any FACTS to prove anything in the above paragraph is anything but a true factual statement.

 

Anyone with any sense will basically see how he has pushed out the boat financially to strive for success, and no one can come up with any other criteria to guarantee the successful manager to win one of only 2 trophies than what is already being applied.

106616[/snapback]

 

LM's posts can be categorised in the same way that they name episodes of Friends. This is "The one where Leazes tells us all how good Shepherd is." He's also got "The one where Leazes tells us how good Bellamy is", "The one where Leazes tells us how crap Souness is" and " The one where Leazes makes something up and attributes it to whoever he's arguing with."

 

On General Chat he has "The one where everyone should get the death penalty."

 

I think that pretty much covers all of his posts tbh. :jester:

106629[/snapback]

 

well you are making that up ?

 

Or explain and show otherwise ?

 

I certainly didn't make up the fact that you backed Souness until the end, nor the fact you appear not to understand the financial implications of the chairman backing not just him but all of his managers, but particular the position Souness put us in with his reckless attitude towards shipping out and bringing in players.And the good running of the company, in comparison with the club in the past and all the other big city clubs.

 

Are you really an accountant ?

106643[/snapback]

 

"The one where Leazes lists a load of mistakes Shepherd has made/overseen and attributes them to me."

 

:jester:

106647[/snapback]

 

Are you really an accountant?

 

Do you go to the audits?

 

;)

 

Fuck me gently!

 

I fear this is all falling on deaf ears again. With big 70's sideburns. Probably. tbh.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The first maybe three lines of his response will be specific to what you've posted. The rest will be his stock in trade list of questions about other chairmen, other clubs, higher attendances, bottomless pits of money, employing managers with good CVs and backing them and all that palaver. And I know I'm guilty of not responding to his questions, but that's because I've seen people go to the trouble of writing big long responses which get them nowhere, so I find it easier and more rewarding to just mock him. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
The first maybe three lines of his response will be specific to what you've posted.  The rest will be his stock in trade list of questions about other chairmen, other clubs, higher attendances, bottomless pits of money, employing managers with good CVs and backing them and all that palaver.  And I know I'm guilty of not responding to his questions, but that's because I've seen people go to the trouble of writing big long responses which get them nowhere, so I find it easier and more rewarding to just mock him. ;)

106650[/snapback]

 

Touche.

 

Difference is, I am right. As always.

 

And - I answer your questions - whereas you know you don't answer because you can't. Thats right as well ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've done a bit of political histroy lately so i'll attempt to draw a comparison.

 

Thatcher - Primeminister

 

Lamont  - Chancellor

 

Economy f**ks up big time, Lamont takes the fall, but who is ultimately responsible?

106655[/snapback]

 

Gemmill tbh.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't want to reply over there Alex...but if I did I would certainly make reference to the fact that you post on there despite slagging it off all the time...so maybe I've done you a favour by saving you from being hypocritical !!!

106568[/snapback]

 

Nobody could save Alex from that fate tbh. ;)

 

Leazes though, seriously you are obsessed.

 

Every way you choose to weight an argument as to what determines 'signs of success or progress' (and you've maneouevred considerably) has been addressed with examples of where we've been found wanting.

 

Most recently this has gone from 'how much more money etc etc' has Freddy pumped into the club than previous chairmen- because this has been addressed by compelling remarks that, by and large Freddy hasnt been the generator of the sort of cash that other chairmen havent had the luxury of, to remarks about how much further we've come than other comparable clubs-which has now been answered on several ocasions by compelling examples of how comparable and much 'smaller' clubs have actually won trophies where we've won nowt!

 

It's getting daft. And as for people not answering your points, dare I suggest it's become something to do with fatigue at the fact that you simply abandon an argument once its been defeated and start all over again with a completely new premise.

106575[/snapback]

 

I haven't maneouevred at all. My point is the same as its always been.

 

Shepherd is a good chairman, he is running the club well and enabling the club to compete for international players and is appointing managers with winning pedigrees and giving them the backing to succeed. This is what makes him good, because he is doing better than the vast majority of all the other big city clubs, and tapping the clubs resources better than all of our other chairman bar SJH in the last 50 years at least.

 

You, and NO ONE, can put forward any FACTS to prove anything in the above paragraph is anything but a true factual statement.

 

Anyone with any sense will basically see how he has pushed out the boat financially to strive for success, and no one can come up with any other criteria to guarantee the successful manager to win one of only 2 trophies than what is already being applied.

106616[/snapback]

 

This epitomises how you blank everything you dont agree with. I've said on more than one occasion that there are more than 2 trophies on offer per season. If you finish in the top 6 then there are four. Assuming you think top six is a realistic (ie not completely outlandish) aspiration for NUFC then stop saying there are only 2 trophies.

 

I know you can hark back to Westwood etc which is more than most of us on here can and I know you compare us favourably now as to then in terms of expenditure etc. Not many on here can recall those days I grant you-I think this is what gets to you though and what colours your opinions-you think we dont have any appreciation of when we were shiiiiyyyiiiiiiite and so we should all shut up. However 1) thats not true (any of us on here under the age of 40 dont have any actual memory of us winning anything in our lifetimes!) and 2) it's not relevant to the debate about how Freddy is the right man to bring success (apart from the fact that he spends money and this is necessary-but this is agreed upon and therefore is not in issue.

 

It sounds harsh but in all honesty your position is what is wrong with this club. You would never ever hear a Liverpool fan saying Freddy's 'achievements' and behaviour/professionalism are acceptable for LFC. It's all about what you're willing to settle for and to be honest you set your standards for NUFC low. These are the conditions for under achievement. You dont look for where we can improve (in terms of chairmen) instead it's always, how we 'could be a lot worse'-true enough but that is not a reason to simply accept the status quo.

 

If Freddy was singlehandedly responsible for say the upturn in attendances and hence the extra revenues (that he is spending) then obviously you'd say he's doing something over and above what anyone else could do. That of course is absolute rubbish and everyone knows it.

106644[/snapback]

 

aahhh now we are getting somewhere.

 

Is Fred the man to lead us to success? Why not ? I think so, but you don't ? If you don't, why not ? If you think the criteria he uses to appoint the manager who will lead us to success on the field, is wrong, where ? This is the answer to success on the field, is it not ?

 

And I stand by the comment that being the 5th most successful club in the country isn't failure, because it isn't. Its not first, but successful to a degree comparitively , because there is no other way of measuring it unless you say everybody except the 2 trophy winners are failures.

I also stand by the comment that he is responsible for keeping the club competing at the top levels. Of course he is, if he isn't then who else is ? Why do you think it is beyond comprehension that he could sit on a tightly run club and let it slide away like other clubs, and our own, in the past ? This is why I draw attention to other clubs, keeping a club competing is still relevant.

 

Why do you choose the Liverpool comparison, we concede they have been more successful over the last decade, however the vast majority of other big city clubs have not. Our overall standing taking aside manure and chelsea because they have different rules, is 3rd. Failure ? Rubbish? I think not. You are using the comparative now BTW ..... ironic ? and why not say that Martin Edwards wasn't exactly a model of morality, but did manu give a toss, no they didn't and no one on here gave a toss about Fred when we were winning in Rotterdam and whats more the next time we are in the Champs League you won't give a toss then either.

 

PS Gemmill.....spot the "made up" bit

Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't want to reply over there Alex...but if I did I would certainly make reference to the fact that you post on there despite slagging it off all the time...so maybe I've done you a favour by saving you from being hypocritical !!!

106568[/snapback]

 

Nobody could save Alex from that fate tbh. ;)

 

Leazes though, seriously you are obsessed.

 

Every way you choose to weight an argument as to what determines 'signs of success or progress' (and you've maneouevred considerably) has been addressed with examples of where we've been found wanting.

 

Most recently this has gone from 'how much more money etc etc' has Freddy pumped into the club than previous chairmen- because this has been addressed by compelling remarks that, by and large Freddy hasnt been the generator of the sort of cash that other chairmen havent had the luxury of, to remarks about how much further we've come than other comparable clubs-which has now been answered on several ocasions by compelling examples of how comparable and much 'smaller' clubs have actually won trophies where we've won nowt!

 

It's getting daft. And as for people not answering your points, dare I suggest it's become something to do with fatigue at the fact that you simply abandon an argument once its been defeated and start all over again with a completely new premise.

106575[/snapback]

 

I haven't maneouevred at all. My point is the same as its always been.

 

Shepherd is a good chairman, he is running the club well and enabling the club to compete for international players and is appointing managers with winning pedigrees and giving them the backing to succeed. This is what makes him good, because he is doing better than the vast majority of all the other big city clubs, and tapping the clubs resources better than all of our other chairman bar SJH in the last 50 years at least.

 

You, and NO ONE, can put forward any FACTS to prove anything in the above paragraph is anything but a true factual statement.

 

Anyone with any sense will basically see how he has pushed out the boat financially to strive for success, and no one can come up with any other criteria to guarantee the successful manager to win one of only 2 trophies than what is already being applied.

106616[/snapback]

 

This epitomises how you blank everything you dont agree with. I've said on more than one occasion that there are more than 2 trophies on offer per season. If you finish in the top 6 then there are four. Assuming you think top six is a realistic (ie not completely outlandish) aspiration for NUFC then stop saying there are only 2 trophies.

 

I know you can hark back to Westwood etc which is more than most of us on here can and I know you compare us favourably now as to then in terms of expenditure etc. Not many on here can recall those days I grant you-I think this is what gets to you though and what colours your opinions-you think we dont have any appreciation of when we were shiiiiyyyiiiiiiite and so we should all shut up. However 1) thats not true (any of us on here under the age of 40 dont have any actual memory of us winning anything in our lifetimes!) and 2) it's not relevant to the debate about how Freddy is the right man to bring success (apart from the fact that he spends money and this is necessary-but this is agreed upon and therefore is not in issue.

 

It sounds harsh but in all honesty your position is what is wrong with this club. You would never ever hear a Liverpool fan saying Freddy's 'achievements' and behaviour/professionalism are acceptable for LFC. It's all about what you're willing to settle for and to be honest you set your standards for NUFC low. These are the conditions for under achievement. You dont look for where we can improve (in terms of chairmen) instead it's always, how we 'could be a lot worse'-true enough but that is not a reason to simply accept the status quo.

 

If Freddy was singlehandedly responsible for say the upturn in attendances and hence the extra revenues (that he is spending) then obviously you'd say he's doing something over and above what anyone else could do. That of course is absolute rubbish and everyone knows it.

106644[/snapback]

 

aahhh now we are getting somewhere.

 

Is Fred the man to lead us to success? Why not ? I think so, but you don't ? If you don't, why not ? If you think the criteria he uses to appoint the manager who will lead us to success on the field, is wrong, where ? This is the answer to success on the field, is it not ?

 

And I stand by the comment that being the 5th most successful club in the country isn't failure, because it isn't. Its not first, but successful to a degree comparitively , because there is no other way of measuring it unless you say everybody except the 2 trophy winners are failures.

I also stand by the comment that he is responsible for keeping the club competing at the top levels. Of course he is, if he isn't then who else is ? Why do you think it is beyond comprehension that he could sit on a tightly run club and let it slide away like other clubs, and our own, in the past ? This is why I draw attention to other clubs, keeping a club competing is still relevant.

 

Why do you choose the Liverpool comparison, we concede they have been more successful over the last decade, however the vast majority of other big city clubs have not. Our overall standing taking aside manure and chelsea because they have different rules, is 3rd. Failure ? Rubbish? I think not. You are using the comparative now BTW ..... ironic ? and why not say that Martin Edwards wasn't exactly a model of morality, but did manu give a toss, no they didn't and no one on here gave a toss about Fred when we were winning in Rotterdam and whats more the next time we are in the Champs League you won't give a toss then either.

 

PS Gemmill.....spot the "made up" bit

106659[/snapback]

 

 

Seriously, are you drunk?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't want to reply over there Alex...but if I did I would certainly make reference to the fact that you post on there despite slagging it off all the time...so maybe I've done you a favour by saving you from being hypocritical !!!

106568[/snapback]

 

Nobody could save Alex from that fate tbh. ;)

 

Leazes though, seriously you are obsessed.

 

Every way you choose to weight an argument as to what determines 'signs of success or progress' (and you've maneouevred considerably) has been addressed with examples of where we've been found wanting.

 

Most recently this has gone from 'how much more money etc etc' has Freddy pumped into the club than previous chairmen- because this has been addressed by compelling remarks that, by and large Freddy hasnt been the generator of the sort of cash that other chairmen havent had the luxury of, to remarks about how much further we've come than other comparable clubs-which has now been answered on several ocasions by compelling examples of how comparable and much 'smaller' clubs have actually won trophies where we've won nowt!

 

It's getting daft. And as for people not answering your points, dare I suggest it's become something to do with fatigue at the fact that you simply abandon an argument once its been defeated and start all over again with a completely new premise.

106575[/snapback]

 

I haven't maneouevred at all. My point is the same as its always been.

 

Shepherd is a good chairman, he is running the club well and enabling the club to compete for international players and is appointing managers with winning pedigrees and giving them the backing to succeed. This is what makes him good, because he is doing better than the vast majority of all the other big city clubs, and tapping the clubs resources better than all of our other chairman bar SJH in the last 50 years at least.

 

You, and NO ONE, can put forward any FACTS to prove anything in the above paragraph is anything but a true factual statement.

 

Anyone with any sense will basically see how he has pushed out the boat financially to strive for success, and no one can come up with any other criteria to guarantee the successful manager to win one of only 2 trophies than what is already being applied.

106616[/snapback]

 

This epitomises how you blank everything you dont agree with. I've said on more than one occasion that there are more than 2 trophies on offer per season. If you finish in the top 6 then there are four. Assuming you think top six is a realistic (ie not completely outlandish) aspiration for NUFC then stop saying there are only 2 trophies.

 

I know you can hark back to Westwood etc which is more than most of us on here can and I know you compare us favourably now as to then in terms of expenditure etc. Not many on here can recall those days I grant you-I think this is what gets to you though and what colours your opinions-you think we dont have any appreciation of when we were shiiiiyyyiiiiiiite and so we should all shut up. However 1) thats not true (any of us on here under the age of 40 dont have any actual memory of us winning anything in our lifetimes!) and 2) it's not relevant to the debate about how Freddy is the right man to bring success (apart from the fact that he spends money and this is necessary-but this is agreed upon and therefore is not in issue.

 

It sounds harsh but in all honesty your position is what is wrong with this club. You would never ever hear a Liverpool fan saying Freddy's 'achievements' and behaviour/professionalism are acceptable for LFC. It's all about what you're willing to settle for and to be honest you set your standards for NUFC low. These are the conditions for under achievement. You dont look for where we can improve (in terms of chairmen) instead it's always, how we 'could be a lot worse'-true enough but that is not a reason to simply accept the status quo.

 

If Freddy was singlehandedly responsible for say the upturn in attendances and hence the extra revenues (that he is spending) then obviously you'd say he's doing something over and above what anyone else could do. That of course is absolute rubbish and everyone knows it.

106644[/snapback]

 

aahhh now we are getting somewhere.

 

Is Fred the man to lead us to success? Why not ? I think so, but you don't ? If you don't, why not ? If you think the criteria he uses to appoint the manager who will lead us to success on the field, is wrong, where ? This is the answer to success on the field, is it not ?

 

And I stand by the comment that being the 5th most successful club in the country isn't failure, because it isn't. Its not first, but successful to a degree comparitively , because there is no other way of measuring it unless you say everybody except the 2 trophy winners are failures.

I also stand by the comment that he is responsible for keeping the club competing at the top levels. Of course he is, if he isn't then who else is ? Why do you think it is beyond comprehension that he could sit on a tightly run club and let it slide away like other clubs, and our own, in the past ? This is why I draw attention to other clubs, keeping a club competing is still relevant.

 

Why do you choose the Liverpool comparison, we concede they have been more successful over the last decade, however the vast majority of other big city clubs have not. Our overall standing taking aside manure and chelsea because they have different rules, is 3rd. Failure ? Rubbish? I think not. You are using the comparative now BTW ..... ironic ? and why not say that Martin Edwards wasn't exactly a model of morality, but did manu give a toss, no they didn't and no one on here gave a toss about Fred when we were winning in Rotterdam and whats more the next time we are in the Champs League you won't give a toss then either.

 

PS Gemmill.....spot the "made up" bit

106659[/snapback]

 

 

Seriously, are you drunk?

106660[/snapback]

 

 

eerrr.....the premiership and the FA Cup, right ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Seriously, are you drunk?

106660[/snapback]

 

 

eerrr.....the premiership and the FA Cup, right ?

106670[/snapback]

 

Must count the league cup, you know, the one that the decent teams don't take seriously, even Wigan fielding a reserve side.

106676[/snapback]

 

possibly. MancMag, chocchip and PP have made some discussionable replies....even if they are wrong ;) but I really don't understand what you are on about here MM

 

EDIT. I can see the comment about the top 6 and being 4 cups if you count the league cup, but comparing us with Liverpool fans :

 

1. Why Liverpool ? Why not Everton, man city, Leeds, Spurs, Villa, Wolves, Southampton, Portsmouth, West Ham, mackems, Sheffield Wednesday, Birmingham.......every one of those bar Portsmouth and Birmingham are big city clubs that have won a trophy since we last did, and could match our potential or get close but choose not to be ambitious enough...

 

2. The comment concerning taking it for granted that we should finish in the top 6, is almost exactly what I said earlier, but which isn't recognised ... how our expectations have been raised and have been done so successfully you don't realise it

 

And as HTL says further down, you can't refute any of the 3 points he has re-stated, only harp on about fat freds mouth, which you didn't do when we were winning in Rotterdam etc

Edited by LeazesMag
Link to post
Share on other sites
The first maybe three lines of his response will be specific to what you've posted.  The rest will be his stock in trade list of questions about other chairmen, other clubs, higher attendances, bottomless pits of money, employing managers with good CVs and backing them and all that palaver.  And I know I'm guilty of not responding to his questions, but that's because I've seen people go to the trouble of writing big long responses which get them nowhere, so I find it easier and more rewarding to just mock him. ;)

106650[/snapback]

 

Gemmill

 

The reason you don't answer the questions is because you have no sensible way of doing so. Good of you to admit it, though.

 

BTW Can you please give a link to one of these "big long responses which got them nowhere?" I've been following this thread and I haven't seen anything that refutes any of the points made byLM.

 

You can't exactly criticise the concept of appointing a manager based on a good CV, can you?

 

You can't refute the fact that Fred has backed all of the manager to the hilt financially.

 

You can't refute that we used to get lower attendances than we get now, and that other clubs have that same potential but don't get the same level of attendance.

 

All you can do is babble on about Fred being fat and that he makes daft statements to the media. Wow! Must be a shite Chairman.

Edited by Howaythelads
Link to post
Share on other sites
The first maybe three lines of his response will be specific to what you've posted.  The rest will be his stock in trade list of questions about other chairmen, other clubs, higher attendances, bottomless pits of money, employing managers with good CVs and backing them and all that palaver.  And I know I'm guilty of not responding to his questions, but that's because I've seen people go to the trouble of writing big long responses which get them nowhere, so I find it easier and more rewarding to just mock him. :jester:

106650[/snapback]

 

Gemmill

 

The reason you don't answer the questions is because you have no sensible way of doing so. Good of you to admit it, though.

 

BTW Can you please give a link to one of these "big long responses which got them nowhere?" I've been following this thread and I haven't seen anything that refutes any of the points made byLM.

 

a) You can't exactly criticise the concept of appointing a manager based on a good CV, can you?

 

:jester: You can't refute the fact that Fred has backed all of the manager to the hilt financially.

 

c) You can't refute that we used to get lower attendances than we get now, and that other clubs have that same potential but don't get the same level of attendance.

 

All you can do is babble on about Fred being fat and that he makes daft statements to the media. Wow! Must be a shite Chairman.

106678[/snapback]

 

I've labelled your points above a, b and c, the better for me to pontificate. ;)

 

a) Never have. However, if that appointment then fails, it's still a failure, regardless of how good or bad the CV was at the time of appointment. Something that LM doesn't accept.

 

:icon_lol: Never have. I would dispute his performance in other areas though - strategy, long term-planning, timeliness of decisions (being proactive rather than reactive), public relations, the list goes on.

 

c) Never have. I do however refute the suggestion that Shepherd is the cause of these higher attendances. The higher attendances are in part down to the increased profile and relative success (no trophies, but a bit of glamour) of the club. They are also attributable in a big way to the boom in football's popularity.

 

I can answer questions and do when I can be arsed - most of the time I'm on here is at work and I know you wouldn't approve of me writing long-winded replies on company time. :jester:

 

As for the long replies people have given to LM, this thread is full of them mate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've done a bit of political histroy lately so i'll attempt to draw a comparison.

 

Thatcher - Primeminister

 

Lamont  - Chancellor

 

Economy f**ks up big time, Lamont takes the fall, but who is ultimately responsible?

106655[/snapback]

 

You can't have done much. Lamont was the chancellor under John Major.

Edited by Dr Kenneth Noisewater
Link to post
Share on other sites
I've done a bit of political histroy lately so i'll attempt to draw a comparison.

 

Thatcher - Primeminister

 

Lamont  - Chancellor

 

Economy f**ks up big time, Lamont takes the fall, but who is ultimately responsible?

106655[/snapback]

 

the voters ?

 

poor comparison mind ...... ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
The first maybe three lines of his response will be specific to what you've posted.  The rest will be his stock in trade list of questions about other chairmen, other clubs, higher attendances, bottomless pits of money, employing managers with good CVs and backing them and all that palaver.  And I know I'm guilty of not responding to his questions, but that's because I've seen people go to the trouble of writing big long responses which get them nowhere, so I find it easier and more rewarding to just mock him. :jester:

106650[/snapback]

 

Gemmill

 

The reason you don't answer the questions is because you have no sensible way of doing so. Good of you to admit it, though.

 

BTW Can you please give a link to one of these "big long responses which got them nowhere?" I've been following this thread and I haven't seen anything that refutes any of the points made byLM.

 

a) You can't exactly criticise the concept of appointing a manager based on a good CV, can you?

 

:jester: You can't refute the fact that Fred has backed all of the manager to the hilt financially.

 

c) You can't refute that we used to get lower attendances than we get now, and that other clubs have that same potential but don't get the same level of attendance.

 

All you can do is babble on about Fred being fat and that he makes daft statements to the media. Wow! Must be a shite Chairman.

106678[/snapback]

 

I've labelled your points above a, b and c, the better for me to pontificate. ;)

 

a) Never have. However, if that appointment then fails, it's still a failure, regardless of how good or bad the CV was at the time of appointment. Something that LM doesn't accept.

 

:icon_lol: Never have. I would dispute his performance in other areas though - strategy, long term-planning, timeliness of decisions (being proactive rather than reactive), public relations, the list goes on.

 

c) Never have. I do however refute the suggestion that Shepherd is the cause of these higher attendances. The higher attendances are in part down to the increased profile and relative success (no trophies, but a bit of glamour) of the club. They are also attributable in a big way to the boom in football's popularity.

 

I can answer questions and do when I can be arsed - most of the time I'm on here is at work and I know you wouldn't approve of me writing long-winded replies on company time. :jester:

 

As for the long replies people have given to LM, this thread is full of them mate.

106692[/snapback]

 

Hmm....well if you think a Cup Final is "failure" when 90 other teams would swap places with you .... or playing in europe where 86 would swap places with you...

 

Again, I repeat, the sign of successfully raising expectations is when you don't realise it ....

 

You don't refute the fact that appointing a manager with a winning CV is a good professionally sound appointment, or if not elaborate on what criteria should be applied alternatively ?

 

The development of the ground and the building of training ground is nothing if not a long term strategy. Would you not agree ?

 

Having a manager for 5 years, playing in the Champions League and qualifying for Europe 3 times - did you complain then about long term planning ? Or is it only since Souness came in 18 months ago...

 

P/R - The customers, rather than "supporters " [if you want to do the business speak] aren't going to go 12 miles down the road, nor buy their strips and merchandise either, so the commercial sales locally and worldwide confirm how irrelevant the P/R comments were. They may have mattered to sensitive souls though, but not the majority of football supporters I bet.

 

I am pleased you admit that the club has raised its profile and "glamour" to help maximise its earning potential, which is what I've also been saying. Although if this isn't attributable to the board of directors it would be interesting to know who it is attributable to. As for footballs boom, as said, it didn't just happen in Newcastle, it happened everywhere, if other clubs didn't have, and still don't have, directors with ambition enough to choose to take the same advantage that ours do, then that is their own problem, be pleased that ours do.

 

Whats the bet you still don't get it ?????????

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've done a bit of political histroy lately so i'll attempt to draw a comparison.

 

Thatcher - Primeminister

 

Lamont  - Chancellor

 

Economy f**ks up big time, Lamont takes the fall, but who is ultimately responsible?

106655[/snapback]

 

the voters ?

 

poor comparison mind ...... ;)

106720[/snapback]

 

Aye fair enough...who then turn on her* as she is no longer perceived to be making the right decisions to take the country in the right direction and so she resigns. Whats the difference?

 

You're seriously deluded.

 

By the way re the question why I chose Liverpool as opposed to another club. They're a comparable size to us and they win stuff. Thats what I want us to do. I want us to be mre like them than Everton. You're content to just be 'better than Everton'. Which is part of the problem.

 

*Thatcher/Major.....it doesnt really matter

Edited by manc-mag
Link to post
Share on other sites
I've done a bit of political histroy lately so i'll attempt to draw a comparison.

 

Thatcher - Primeminister

 

Lamont  - Chancellor

 

Economy f**ks up big time, Lamont takes the fall, but who is ultimately responsible?

106655[/snapback]

 

the voters ?

 

poor comparison mind ...... ;)

106720[/snapback]

 

Aye fair enough...who then turn on her* as she is no longer perceived to be making the right decisions to take the country in the right direction and so she resigns. Whats the difference?

 

You're seriously deluded.

 

By the way re the question why I chose Liverpool as opposed to another club. They're a comparable size to us and they win stuff. Thats what I want us to do. I want us to be mre like them than Everton. You're content to just be 'better than Everton'. Which is part of the problem.

 

*Thatcher/Major.....it doesnt really matter

106728[/snapback]

 

So are the others I've mentioned, as i said all of them bar 2 have won cups since we have. So why Liverpool ? because they are the ONLY ones....as I said, raised expectations...football didn't start in 1992, and coming runners up 4 times since then without coming first doesn't make you shit or your board of directors either...

 

You aren't the only one who wants to win stuff, we all do. We have got closer to it and competed for it more consistently than all the other clubs of a "comparable size" to us, or able to compete, and beat us having done it before. By picking only Liverpool you are effectively putting us in a 2 team league finishing bottom....

 

The boards and chairman of ALL those other big city clubs could challenge us if they wanted to, or ambitious enough, but the simple fact is, they aren't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've done a bit of political histroy lately so i'll attempt to draw a comparison.

 

Thatcher - Primeminister

 

Lamont  - Chancellor

 

Economy f**ks up big time, Lamont takes the fall, but who is ultimately responsible?

106655[/snapback]

 

You can't have done much. Lamont was the chancellor under John Major.

106699[/snapback]

 

Errrrr, i'm a lot better at comparitive religion ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've done a bit of political histroy lately so i'll attempt to draw a comparison.

 

Thatcher - Primeminister

 

Lamont  - Chancellor

 

Economy f**ks up big time, Lamont takes the fall, but who is ultimately responsible?

106655[/snapback]

 

the voters ?

 

poor comparison mind ...... ;)

106720[/snapback]

 

Aye fair enough...who then turn on her* as she is no longer perceived to be making the right decisions to take the country in the right direction and so she resigns. Whats the difference?

 

You're seriously deluded.

 

By the way re the question why I chose Liverpool as opposed to another club. They're a comparable size to us and they win stuff. Thats what I want us to do. I want us to be mre like them than Everton. You're content to just be 'better than Everton'. Which is part of the problem.

 

*Thatcher/Major.....it doesnt really matter

106728[/snapback]

 

So are the others I've mentioned, as i said all of them bar 2 have won cups since we have. So why Liverpool ? because they are the ONLY ones....as I said, raised expectations...football didn't start in 1992, and coming runners up 4 times since then without coming first doesn't make you shit or your board of directors either...

 

You aren't the only one who wants to win stuff, we all do. We have got closer to it and competed for it more consistently than all the other clubs of a "comparable size" to us, or able to compete, and beat us having done it before. By picking only Liverpool you are effectively putting us in a 2 team league finishing bottom....

 

The boards and chairman of ALL those other big city clubs could challenge us if they wanted to, or ambitious enough, but the simple fact is, they aren't.

106788[/snapback]

 

With regards to managerial appoinments: A good CV gives someone the 'right' to apply for a job. They then have an interview where they discuss their ideas and strategy, this is logical. I want to know what part of Dalgleish's interview Freddie liked, the bit about selling Ginola, Ferdinand and Asprilla? The bit about buying Anderson, Guivarch and Glass? The bit about investing in young players like Serrant and Hamilton?

A good CV is fine but you need to know a mangers plans before you employ him. Common sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've done a bit of political histroy lately so i'll attempt to draw a comparison.

 

Thatcher - Primeminister

 

Lamont  - Chancellor

 

Economy f**ks up big time, Lamont takes the fall, but who is ultimately responsible?

106655[/snapback]

 

the voters ?

 

poor comparison mind ...... ;)

106720[/snapback]

 

Aye fair enough...who then turn on her* as she is no longer perceived to be making the right decisions to take the country in the right direction and so she resigns. Whats the difference?

 

You're seriously deluded.

 

By the way re the question why I chose Liverpool as opposed to another club. They're a comparable size to us and they win stuff. Thats what I want us to do. I want us to be mre like them than Everton. You're content to just be 'better than Everton'. Which is part of the problem.

 

*Thatcher/Major.....it doesnt really matter

106728[/snapback]

 

So are the others I've mentioned, as i said all of them bar 2 have won cups since we have. So why Liverpool ? because they are the ONLY ones....as I said, raised expectations...football didn't start in 1992, and coming runners up 4 times since then without coming first doesn't make you shit or your board of directors either...

 

You aren't the only one who wants to win stuff, we all do. We have got closer to it and competed for it more consistently than all the other clubs of a "comparable size" to us, or able to compete, and beat us having done it before. By picking only Liverpool you are effectively putting us in a 2 team league finishing bottom....

 

The boards and chairman of ALL those other big city clubs could challenge us if they wanted to, or ambitious enough, but the simple fact is, they aren't.

106788[/snapback]

 

With regards to managerial appoinments: A good CV gives someone the 'right' to apply for a job. They then have an interview where they discuss their ideas and strategy, this is logical. I want to know what part of Dalgleish's interview Freddie liked, the bit about selling Ginola, Ferdinand and Asprilla? The bit about buying Anderson, Guivarch and Glass? The bit about investing in young players like Serrant and Hamilton?

A good CV is fine but you need to know a mangers plans before you employ him. Common sense.

106881[/snapback]

 

Testify tbh!

 

Not heard it put any better than that so far!

 

I would absolutely love to hear how the Souness interview went. Though it should be remembered that Gemmill backed him to the bitter end, so it's really his fault in hindsight.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've done a bit of political histroy lately so i'll attempt to draw a comparison.

 

Thatcher - Primeminister

 

Lamont  - Chancellor

 

Economy f**ks up big time, Lamont takes the fall, but who is ultimately responsible?

106655[/snapback]

 

the voters ?

 

poor comparison mind ...... ;)

106720[/snapback]

 

Aye fair enough...who then turn on her* as she is no longer perceived to be making the right decisions to take the country in the right direction and so she resigns. Whats the difference?

 

You're seriously deluded.

 

By the way re the question why I chose Liverpool as opposed to another club. They're a comparable size to us and they win stuff. Thats what I want us to do. I want us to be mre like them than Everton. You're content to just be 'better than Everton'. Which is part of the problem.

 

*Thatcher/Major.....it doesnt really matter

106728[/snapback]

 

So are the others I've mentioned, as i said all of them bar 2 have won cups since we have. So why Liverpool ? because they are the ONLY ones....as I said, raised expectations...football didn't start in 1992, and coming runners up 4 times since then without coming first doesn't make you shit or your board of directors either...

 

You aren't the only one who wants to win stuff, we all do. We have got closer to it and competed for it more consistently than all the other clubs of a "comparable size" to us, or able to compete, and beat us having done it before. By picking only Liverpool you are effectively putting us in a 2 team league finishing bottom....

 

The boards and chairman of ALL those other big city clubs could challenge us if they wanted to, or ambitious enough, but the simple fact is, they aren't.

106788[/snapback]

 

With regards to managerial appoinments: A good CV gives someone the 'right' to apply for a job. They then have an interview where they discuss their ideas and strategy, this is logical. I want to know what part of Dalgleish's interview Freddie liked, the bit about selling Ginola, Ferdinand and Asprilla? The bit about buying Anderson, Guivarch and Glass? The bit about investing in young players like Serrant and Hamilton?

A good CV is fine but you need to know a mangers plans before you employ him. Common sense.

106881[/snapback]

 

You do yourself no favours by taking the extreme examples to attempt to back it up mate.

 

For starters, selling Arsprilla was a great idea, and that would sell him to me like a shot.

 

As Ginola had clearly lost something at Newcastle, his future was clearly doubtful at the time.

 

Ferdinand was sold on the back of the club going PLC, to raise the share price, Mark Cambridge of the grey suit in London being hugely influential, this is well discussed and a bad blow of course, but not the usual circumstances.

 

If Dalglish had also told me he was going to buy Given, Solano, Speed, Hamman, Tomasson, Dabizas, and put the youth system back in place, i would have gave him the job, particularly on the back of his CV ? Wouldn't you ? [or anyone else ?]

To be fair, Serrant and Glass were reasonable gambles they were players for small fees who may have made the step up, they certainly helped to get the reserve team settled down again as quickly as possible.

 

BTW his CV beats all the current candidates hands down. So how can everyone on here say "they are good candidates" on the back of their CV ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've done a bit of political histroy lately so i'll attempt to draw a comparison.

 

Thatcher - Primeminister

 

Lamont  - Chancellor

 

Economy f**ks up big time, Lamont takes the fall, but who is ultimately responsible?

106655[/snapback]

 

the voters ?

 

poor comparison mind ...... ;)

106720[/snapback]

 

Aye fair enough...who then turn on her* as she is no longer perceived to be making the right decisions to take the country in the right direction and so she resigns. Whats the difference?

 

You're seriously deluded.

 

By the way re the question why I chose Liverpool as opposed to another club. They're a comparable size to us and they win stuff. Thats what I want us to do. I want us to be mre like them than Everton. You're content to just be 'better than Everton'. Which is part of the problem.

 

*Thatcher/Major.....it doesnt really matter

106728[/snapback]

 

So are the others I've mentioned, as i said all of them bar 2 have won cups since we have. So why Liverpool ? because they are the ONLY ones....as I said, raised expectations...football didn't start in 1992, and coming runners up 4 times since then without coming first doesn't make you shit or your board of directors either...

 

You aren't the only one who wants to win stuff, we all do. We have got closer to it and competed for it more consistently than all the other clubs of a "comparable size" to us, or able to compete, and beat us having done it before. By picking only Liverpool you are effectively putting us in a 2 team league finishing bottom....

 

The boards and chairman of ALL those other big city clubs could challenge us if they wanted to, or ambitious enough, but the simple fact is, they aren't.

106788[/snapback]

 

With regards to managerial appoinments: A good CV gives someone the 'right' to apply for a job. They then have an interview where they discuss their ideas and strategy, this is logical. I want to know what part of Dalgleish's interview Freddie liked, the bit about selling Ginola, Ferdinand and Asprilla? The bit about buying Anderson, Guivarch and Glass? The bit about investing in young players like Serrant and Hamilton?

A good CV is fine but you need to know a mangers plans before you employ him. Common sense.

106881[/snapback]

 

You do yourself no favours by taking the extreme examples to attempt to back it up mate.

 

For starters, selling Arsprilla was a great idea, and that would sell him to me like a shot.

 

As Ginola had clearly lost something at Newcastle, his future was clearly doubtful at the time.

 

Ferdinand was sold on the back of the club going PLC, to raise the share price, Mark Cambridge of the grey suit in London being hugely influential, this is well discussed and a bad blow of course, but not the usual circumstances.

 

If Dalglish had also told me he was going to buy Given, Solano, Speed, Hamman, Tomasson, Dabizas, and put the youth system back in place, i would have gave him the job, particularly on the back of his CV ? Wouldn't you ? [or anyone else ?]

To be fair, Serrant and Glass were reasonable gambles they were players for small fees who may have made the step up, they certainly helped to get the reserve team settled down again as quickly as possible.

BTW his CV beats all the current candidates hands down. So how can everyone on here say "they are good candidates" on the back of their CV ?

106909[/snapback]

 

So how does panic sacking Dalglish four games into the season fit into your assesment of Shepherds policy of getting the right man for the job and backing him?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...