Imagine the uproar

[LeazesMag 0]

Being Chairman of NUFC is one of the easiest jobs in the Premiership - full houses every week, shitloads of merchandise sales, sufficient revenues to finance big signings (which can be used to dig yourself out of a hole), and a big enough reputation thanks to Keegan and Hall to attract decent managers and to an extent, players.  If anything Shepherd has eroded this reputation by the way, NOT enhanced it, or else he would never have been forced to appoint Souness last time around.  That's why this appointment is so important, because if he fucks it up this time, he uses up the last of that reputation, and we're just another perennial also-ran.

 

I just think everyone is wasting their time arguing with Leazes though because he cannot see this, and he just adjusts his position to fit around his argument, i.e. Souness to blame for bad signings, Shepherd to thank for good ones.

103638[/snapback]

 

As someone who backed Souness you obviously know what you are talking about....if it is so easy, please explain how directors at other clubs, including ours many years in the past, have allowed well run clubs and top football teams to slide .... You really think we have always had 50,000 gates and played in europe don't you despite being unable to read my posts or check up the figures if you don't believe them ...

103694[/snapback]

 

 

In fairness, although Gemmill takes a lot of stick about being 'pro-Souness', his stance was only ever a 'lets-avoid-a-knee-jerk-reaction-to-an-absolutely-abysmal-appointment'. Shepherd really did back Souness (in the truest sense), because he made the absolutely abysmal appointment in the first place.

103701[/snapback]

 

That is true. I have said earlier, that the appointment of Souness was a knee jerk stupid act as a reaction to the fact that the club needed a few players brought into line and kicked up the arse.

 

However the other 3 appointments that were made, were made with the criteria of them being trophy winners and good team builders at other clubs, with the financial backing given to create the same thing here. So how does that make them anything other than sound professsional appointments ? For those who do not agree with such criteria, please explain what other criteria you would use that the club did not employ ?

[LeazesMag 0]

LM, i'm quite aware that i'm loading these questions in my favour and as you disagree i can understand your reluctance to give me satisfaction on this issue, but to pursue my point further:

 

Do YOU think Dalgleish was a sucees ? YES/NO

 

Do YOU think Gullit was a succes ? YES/NO

 

Do YOU think Robson was a succes ? YES/NO

 

Do YOU think Souness was a success ? YES/NO

 

Ideally i would like you to answer yes or by your own criteria, though of course you quite free to answer in any way you see fit. I just feel a direct yes or no to each of these would be a good spring board for ongoing discussion. I don't need to know your criteria, you don't have to justify your answers imo. If someone thinks a certain way, so be it.

103610[/snapback]

 

Well in view of the fact that we waited 22 years to reach a Cup Final, and neither Leeds, Birmingham, Villa, Everton, mackems, West Ham, Portsmouth, Sheffield Wednesday, Wolves and other big city clubs haven't reached one either since we reached one in 1998, nor qualified or competed in the Champions League or even the UEFA Cup, then comparatively speaking it makes us more successful on and off the field than them. And only Arsenal, Liverpool, Man U and Chelsea more successful.

 

All the people who are slagging off the board STILL fail to answer this question, nor answer another one, if the club are so bad and are appointing "shit" managers, what do YOU think they should do that they are not to ensure more success in future ?

 

I'm not holding my breath for a reply as it hasn't been supplied so far, and I don't mean you chocchip only you and PP and possibly Renton have gave anything resembling a half decent constructive reply so far

103702[/snapback]

 

He made it fairly clear he was looking for yes/no answers like.

103705[/snapback]

 

Thats my answer, it is there if you read it, and its a fucking damn sight better than the absolute crap you spouted about Souness for months

[Gemmill 34444]

LM, i'm quite aware that i'm loading these questions in my favour and as you disagree i can understand your reluctance to give me satisfaction on this issue, but to pursue my point further:

 

Do YOU think Dalgleish was a sucees ? YES/NO

 

Do YOU think Gullit was a succes ? YES/NO

 

Do YOU think Robson was a succes ? YES/NO

 

Do YOU think Souness was a success ? YES/NO

 

Ideally i would like you to answer yes or by your own criteria, though of course you quite free to answer in any way you see fit. I just feel a direct yes or no to each of these would be a good spring board for ongoing discussion. I don't need to know your criteria, you don't have to justify your answers imo. If someone thinks a certain way, so be it.

103610[/snapback]

 

Well in view of the fact that we waited 22 years to reach a Cup Final, and neither Leeds, Birmingham, Villa, Everton, mackems, West Ham, Portsmouth, Sheffield Wednesday, Wolves and other big city clubs haven't reached one either since we reached one in 1998, nor qualified or competed in the Champions League or even the UEFA Cup, then comparatively speaking it makes us more successful on and off the field than them. And only Arsenal, Liverpool, Man U and Chelsea more successful.

 

All the people who are slagging off the board STILL fail to answer this question, nor answer another one, if the club are so bad and are appointing "shit" managers, what do YOU think they should do that they are not to ensure more success in future ?

 

I'm not holding my breath for a reply as it hasn't been supplied so far, and I don't mean you chocchip only you and PP and possibly Renton have gave anything resembling a half decent constructive reply so far

103702[/snapback]

 

He made it fairly clear he was looking for yes/no answers like.

103705[/snapback]

 

Thats my answer, it is there if you read it, and its a fucking damn sight better than the absolute crap you spouted about Souness for months

103707[/snapback]

 

All I can see is you skirting round the issue tp avoid having to give the only logical answer, which is a resounding NO to three of the appointments and a partial yes to one of them, in terms of the progress we made under Robson. So that's three unsuccessful appointments out of 4....oh dear.

[manc-mag 1]

Being Chairman of NUFC is one of the easiest jobs in the Premiership - full houses every week, shitloads of merchandise sales, sufficient revenues to finance big signings (which can be used to dig yourself out of a hole), and a big enough reputation thanks to Keegan and Hall to attract decent managers and to an extent, players.  If anything Shepherd has eroded this reputation by the way, NOT enhanced it, or else he would never have been forced to appoint Souness last time around.  That's why this appointment is so important, because if he fucks it up this time, he uses up the last of that reputation, and we're just another perennial also-ran.

 

I just think everyone is wasting their time arguing with Leazes though because he cannot see this, and he just adjusts his position to fit around his argument, i.e. Souness to blame for bad signings, Shepherd to thank for good ones.

103638[/snapback]

 

As someone who backed Souness you obviously know what you are talking about....if it is so easy, please explain how directors at other clubs, including ours many years in the past, have allowed well run clubs and top football teams to slide .... You really think we have always had 50,000 gates and played in europe don't you despite being unable to read my posts or check up the figures if you don't believe them ...

103694[/snapback]

 

 

In fairness, although Gemmill takes a lot of stick about being 'pro-Souness', his stance was only ever a 'lets-avoid-a-knee-jerk-reaction-to-an-absolutely-abysmal-appointment'. Shepherd really did back Souness (in the truest sense), because he made the absolutely abysmal appointment in the first place.

103701[/snapback]

 

That is true. I have said earlier, that the appointment of Souness was a knee jerk stupid act as a reaction to the fact that the club needed a few players brought into line and kicked up the arse.

 

However the other 3 appointments that were made, were made with the criteria of them being trophy winners and good team builders at other clubs, with the financial backing given to create the same thing here. So how does that make them anything other than sound professsional appointments ? For those who do not agree with such criteria, please explain what other criteria you would use that the club did not employ ?

103706[/snapback]

 

 

Benefit of hindsight of course but I'd say:

 

Dalglish-probably hard to criticise Freddy on this one. I think Dalglish is a genuine professional with extremely exacting standards. History will judge him as a flop but I dont think I;d blame FF for this one

 

Gullit-had won some stuff at Chelsea so this erred in his favour but even the most cursory glance into his management style/relationships etc etc should have had alarm bells ringing. Arrogance of Souness proportions.

 

Robson-agree with Gemmill on this one. Lucky co-incidence time wise and also the fact that he'd always wanted to manage NUFC and would have done so over any other club all conspired to make Freddy's decision for him. Gets no credit for this.

 

Souness-complete unmitigated disaster of near biblical proportions that we're all still grasping for an explanation for 2 years on. No explanation forthcoming apart from Chairmans ineptitude.

[LeazesMag 0]

LM, i'm quite aware that i'm loading these questions in my favour and as you disagree i can understand your reluctance to give me satisfaction on this issue, but to pursue my point further:

 

Do YOU think Dalgleish was a sucees ? YES/NO

 

Do YOU think Gullit was a succes ? YES/NO

 

Do YOU think Robson was a succes ? YES/NO

 

Do YOU think Souness was a success ? YES/NO

 

Ideally i would like you to answer yes or by your own criteria, though of course you quite free to answer in any way you see fit. I just feel a direct yes or no to each of these would be a good spring board for ongoing discussion. I don't need to know your criteria, you don't have to justify your answers imo. If someone thinks a certain way, so be it.

103610[/snapback]

 

Well in view of the fact that we waited 22 years to reach a Cup Final, and neither Leeds, Birmingham, Villa, Everton, mackems, West Ham, Portsmouth, Sheffield Wednesday, Wolves and other big city clubs haven't reached one either since we reached one in 1998, nor qualified or competed in the Champions League or even the UEFA Cup, then comparatively speaking it makes us more successful on and off the field than them. And only Arsenal, Liverpool, Man U and Chelsea more successful.

 

All the people who are slagging off the board STILL fail to answer this question, nor answer another one, if the club are so bad and are appointing "shit" managers, what do YOU think they should do that they are not to ensure more success in future ?

 

I'm not holding my breath for a reply as it hasn't been supplied so far, and I don't mean you chocchip only you and PP and possibly Renton have gave anything resembling a half decent constructive reply so far

103702[/snapback]

 

He made it fairly clear he was looking for yes/no answers like.

103705[/snapback]

 

Thats my answer, it is there if you read it, and its a fucking damn sight better than the absolute crap you spouted about Souness for months

103707[/snapback]

 

All I can see is you skirting round the issue tp avoid having to give the only logical answer, which is a resounding NO to three of the appointments and a partial yes to one of them, in terms of the progress we made under Robson. So that's three unsuccessful appointments out of 4....oh dear.

103708[/snapback]

 

I've said they were comparitively successful. As there are only 2 trophies, why do you consider there are 18 premiership failures a season ?

 

Now what criteria do you think the board should apply when choosing a manager, apart from foresight, in view of the outstanding CV Dalglish had in particular ?

[Gemmill 34444]

LM, i'm quite aware that i'm loading these questions in my favour and as you disagree i can understand your reluctance to give me satisfaction on this issue, but to pursue my point further:

 

Do YOU think Dalgleish was a sucees ? YES/NO

 

Do YOU think Gullit was a succes ? YES/NO

 

Do YOU think Robson was a succes ? YES/NO

 

Do YOU think Souness was a success ? YES/NO

 

Ideally i would like you to answer yes or by your own criteria, though of course you quite free to answer in any way you see fit. I just feel a direct yes or no to each of these would be a good spring board for ongoing discussion. I don't need to know your criteria, you don't have to justify your answers imo. If someone thinks a certain way, so be it.

103610[/snapback]

 

Well in view of the fact that we waited 22 years to reach a Cup Final, and neither Leeds, Birmingham, Villa, Everton, mackems, West Ham, Portsmouth, Sheffield Wednesday, Wolves and other big city clubs haven't reached one either since we reached one in 1998, nor qualified or competed in the Champions League or even the UEFA Cup, then comparatively speaking it makes us more successful on and off the field than them. And only Arsenal, Liverpool, Man U and Chelsea more successful.

 

All the people who are slagging off the board STILL fail to answer this question, nor answer another one, if the club are so bad and are appointing "shit" managers, what do YOU think they should do that they are not to ensure more success in future ?

 

I'm not holding my breath for a reply as it hasn't been supplied so far, and I don't mean you chocchip only you and PP and possibly Renton have gave anything resembling a half decent constructive reply so far

103702[/snapback]

 

He made it fairly clear he was looking for yes/no answers like.

103705[/snapback]

 

Thats my answer, it is there if you read it, and its a fucking damn sight better than the absolute crap you spouted about Souness for months

103707[/snapback]

 

All I can see is you skirting round the issue tp avoid having to give the only logical answer, which is a resounding NO to three of the appointments and a partial yes to one of them, in terms of the progress we made under Robson. So that's three unsuccessful appointments out of 4....oh dear.

103708[/snapback]

 

I've said they were comparitively successful. As there are only 2 trophies, why do you consider there are 18 premiership failures a season ?

 

Now what criteria do you think the board should apply when choosing a manager, apart from foresight, in view of the outstanding CV Dalglish had in particular ?

103719[/snapback]

 

Unlike you I think it is perfectly acceptable to look at the performance of a manager and THEN judge whether or not it was a successful appointment. I get the impression that you think that unless it looked like a mistake on the day of the appointment, no one has any right to complain if it turns out to be a fucking shambles a year or two down the line.

 

I agree and have posted elsewhere - Dalglish's CV looked perfect for the job, and you can probably cut Shepherd some slack with that one, but at the end of the day, it was an unsuccessful appointment, given where we were when he was appointed, and where we were when he left. The buck stops with Shepherd.

[manc-mag 1]

LM, i'm quite aware that i'm loading these questions in my favour and as you disagree i can understand your reluctance to give me satisfaction on this issue, but to pursue my point further:

 

Do YOU think Dalgleish was a sucees ? YES/NO

 

Do YOU think Gullit was a succes ? YES/NO

 

Do YOU think Robson was a succes ? YES/NO

 

Do YOU think Souness was a success ? YES/NO

 

Ideally i would like you to answer yes or by your own criteria, though of course you quite free to answer in any way you see fit. I just feel a direct yes or no to each of these would be a good spring board for ongoing discussion. I don't need to know your criteria, you don't have to justify your answers imo. If someone thinks a certain way, so be it.

103610[/snapback]

 

Well in view of the fact that we waited 22 years to reach a Cup Final, and neither Leeds, Birmingham, Villa, Everton, mackems, West Ham, Portsmouth, Sheffield Wednesday, Wolves and other big city clubs haven't reached one either since we reached one in 1998, nor qualified or competed in the Champions League or even the UEFA Cup, then comparatively speaking it makes us more successful on and off the field than them. And only Arsenal, Liverpool, Man U and Chelsea more successful.

 

All the people who are slagging off the board STILL fail to answer this question, nor answer another one, if the club are so bad and are appointing "shit" managers, what do YOU think they should do that they are not to ensure more success in future ?

 

I'm not holding my breath for a reply as it hasn't been supplied so far, and I don't mean you chocchip only you and PP and possibly Renton have gave anything resembling a half decent constructive reply so far

103702[/snapback]

 

He made it fairly clear he was looking for yes/no answers like.

103705[/snapback]

 

Thats my answer, it is there if you read it, and its a fucking damn sight better than the absolute crap you spouted about Souness for months

103707[/snapback]

 

All I can see is you skirting round the issue tp avoid having to give the only logical answer, which is a resounding NO to three of the appointments and a partial yes to one of them, in terms of the progress we made under Robson. So that's three unsuccessful appointments out of 4....oh dear.

103708[/snapback]

 

I've said they were comparitively successful. As there are only 2 trophies, why do you consider there are 18 premiership failures a season ?

 

Now what criteria do you think the board should apply when choosing a manager, apart from foresight, in view of the outstanding CV Dalglish had in particular ?

103719[/snapback]

 

 

As long as you finish in the top six then there are 4 from a possible 5 trophies you will be entered for at the start of the season.

 

Our support/turnover has been a match for Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal for the whole of the Shepherd era. Only Man U are consistently out of sight. During this time Chelsea have won the prem/domestic cups, Liverpool have won the CL and all domestic cups apart from the prem, Man U have won everything in the game and Arse have won everything bar the CL. We have won nothing.

 

The likes of Leicester Tottenham and Middlesbrough have won trophies in this time too, incidentally.

Edited March 6, 2006 by manc-mag

[Howaythelads 0]

LM, i'm quite aware that i'm loading these questions in my favour and as you disagree i can understand your reluctance to give me satisfaction on this issue, but to pursue my point further:

 

Do YOU think Dalgleish was a sucees ? YES/NO

 

Do YOU think Gullit was a succes ? YES/NO

 

Do YOU think Robson was a succes ? YES/NO

 

Do YOU think Souness was a success ? YES/NO

 

Ideally i would like you to answer yes or by your own criteria, though of course you quite free to answer in any way you see fit. I just feel a direct yes or no to each of these would be a good spring board for ongoing discussion. I don't need to know your criteria, you don't have to justify your answers imo. If someone thinks a certain way, so be it.

103610[/snapback]

 

Well in view of the fact that we waited 22 years to reach a Cup Final, and neither Leeds, Birmingham, Villa, Everton, mackems, West Ham, Portsmouth, Sheffield Wednesday, Wolves and other big city clubs haven't reached one either since we reached one in 1998, nor qualified or competed in the Champions League or even the UEFA Cup, then comparatively speaking it makes us more successful on and off the field than them. And only Arsenal, Liverpool, Man U and Chelsea more successful.

 

All the people who are slagging off the board STILL fail to answer this question, nor answer another one, if the club are so bad and are appointing "shit" managers, what do YOU think they should do that they are not to ensure more success in future ?

 

I'm not holding my breath for a reply as it hasn't been supplied so far, and I don't mean you chocchip only you and PP and possibly Renton have gave anything resembling a half decent constructive reply so far

103702[/snapback]

 

He made it fairly clear he was looking for yes/no answers like.

103705[/snapback]

 

Thats my answer, it is there if you read it, and its a fucking damn sight better than the absolute crap you spouted about Souness for months

103707[/snapback]

 

All I can see is you skirting round the issue tp avoid having to give the only logical answer, which is a resounding NO to three of the appointments and a partial yes to one of them, in terms of the progress we made under Robson. So that's three unsuccessful appointments out of 4....oh dear.

103708[/snapback]

 

I've said they were comparitively successful. As there are only 2 trophies, why do you consider there are 18 premiership failures a season ?

 

Now what criteria do you think the board should apply when choosing a manager, apart from foresight, in view of the outstanding CV Dalglish had in particular ?

103719[/snapback]

 

Unlike you I think it is perfectly acceptable to look at the performance of a manager and THEN judge whether or not it was a successful appointment. I get the impression that you think that unless it looked like a mistake on the day of the appointment, no one has any right to complain if it turns out to be a fucking shambles a year or two down the line.

 

I agree and have posted elsewhere - Dalglish's CV looked perfect for the job, and you can probably cut Shepherd some slack with that one, but at the end of the day, it was an unsuccessful appointment, given where we were when he was appointed, and where we were when he left. The buck stops with Shepherd.

103720[/snapback]

 

But what can he do other than appoint people with a top CV like Dalglish?

[Gemmill 34444]

LM, i'm quite aware that i'm loading these questions in my favour and as you disagree i can understand your reluctance to give me satisfaction on this issue, but to pursue my point further:

 

Do YOU think Dalgleish was a sucees ? YES/NO

 

Do YOU think Gullit was a succes ? YES/NO

 

Do YOU think Robson was a succes ? YES/NO

 

Do YOU think Souness was a success ? YES/NO

 

Ideally i would like you to answer yes or by your own criteria, though of course you quite free to answer in any way you see fit. I just feel a direct yes or no to each of these would be a good spring board for ongoing discussion. I don't need to know your criteria, you don't have to justify your answers imo. If someone thinks a certain way, so be it.

103610[/snapback]

 

Well in view of the fact that we waited 22 years to reach a Cup Final, and neither Leeds, Birmingham, Villa, Everton, mackems, West Ham, Portsmouth, Sheffield Wednesday, Wolves and other big city clubs haven't reached one either since we reached one in 1998, nor qualified or competed in the Champions League or even the UEFA Cup, then comparatively speaking it makes us more successful on and off the field than them. And only Arsenal, Liverpool, Man U and Chelsea more successful.

 

All the people who are slagging off the board STILL fail to answer this question, nor answer another one, if the club are so bad and are appointing "shit" managers, what do YOU think they should do that they are not to ensure more success in future ?

 

I'm not holding my breath for a reply as it hasn't been supplied so far, and I don't mean you chocchip only you and PP and possibly Renton have gave anything resembling a half decent constructive reply so far

103702[/snapback]

 

He made it fairly clear he was looking for yes/no answers like.

103705[/snapback]

 

Thats my answer, it is there if you read it, and its a fucking damn sight better than the absolute crap you spouted about Souness for months

103707[/snapback]

 

All I can see is you skirting round the issue tp avoid having to give the only logical answer, which is a resounding NO to three of the appointments and a partial yes to one of them, in terms of the progress we made under Robson. So that's three unsuccessful appointments out of 4....oh dear.

103708[/snapback]

 

I've said they were comparitively successful. As there are only 2 trophies, why do you consider there are 18 premiership failures a season ?

 

Now what criteria do you think the board should apply when choosing a manager, apart from foresight, in view of the outstanding CV Dalglish had in particular ?

103719[/snapback]

 

Unlike you I think it is perfectly acceptable to look at the performance of a manager and THEN judge whether or not it was a successful appointment. I get the impression that you think that unless it looked like a mistake on the day of the appointment, no one has any right to complain if it turns out to be a fucking shambles a year or two down the line.

 

I agree and have posted elsewhere - Dalglish's CV looked perfect for the job, and you can probably cut Shepherd some slack with that one, but at the end of the day, it was an unsuccessful appointment, given where we were when he was appointed, and where we were when he left. The buck stops with Shepherd.

103720[/snapback]

 

But what can he do other than appoint people with a top CV like Dalglish?

103723[/snapback]

 

To be fair, Dalglish is one example from 10 years ago. As I've said, I don't think you can give him too much credit for Robson, as that was just us getting very lucky, and something like that situation is never going to occur again. So we're going to have to rely on Shepherd's judgement of what makes a good manager, and outside of the fluke with Robson, and the Dalglish appointment (which should have worked but ultimately was a failure), his judgement doesn't really look up to much.

[Renton 17767]

Whilst we're trying to get people to answer questions , how about this one - how would Shepherd do as Chairman as Norwich?

 

Personally, I'd attribute our relative success (if you can call it that) as down to the nature and number of the fans, and not to the chairman. Any thoughts on how he'd do at a smaller club? Could he turn around Sunderkand for instance?

[peasepud 59]

Before Shepherd and the Halls, we had 16 [sIXTEEN] years out of europe

 

And 15,000 gates.

103684[/snapback]

 

I will happily take that quote on baord when you tell me the gates of the other clubs during that period in time, football went through a meltdown, deaths on the terraces, hooligans and generally a fairly shite reputation which stopped people from going, not just here but everywhere else I think. Im more than happy to be proved wrong on this one but I'll happily wager that most of the clubs during that time were witnessing far lower gates than they get now.

[manc-mag 1]

LM, i'm quite aware that i'm loading these questions in my favour and as you disagree i can understand your reluctance to give me satisfaction on this issue, but to pursue my point further:

 

Do YOU think Dalgleish was a sucees ? YES/NO

 

Do YOU think Gullit was a succes ? YES/NO

 

Do YOU think Robson was a succes ? YES/NO

 

Do YOU think Souness was a success ? YES/NO

 

Ideally i would like you to answer yes or by your own criteria, though of course you quite free to answer in any way you see fit. I just feel a direct yes or no to each of these would be a good spring board for ongoing discussion. I don't need to know your criteria, you don't have to justify your answers imo. If someone thinks a certain way, so be it.

103610[/snapback]

 

Well in view of the fact that we waited 22 years to reach a Cup Final, and neither Leeds, Birmingham, Villa, Everton, mackems, West Ham, Portsmouth, Sheffield Wednesday, Wolves and other big city clubs haven't reached one either since we reached one in 1998, nor qualified or competed in the Champions League or even the UEFA Cup, then comparatively speaking it makes us more successful on and off the field than them. And only Arsenal, Liverpool, Man U and Chelsea more successful.

 

All the people who are slagging off the board STILL fail to answer this question, nor answer another one, if the club are so bad and are appointing "shit" managers, what do YOU think they should do that they are not to ensure more success in future ?

 

I'm not holding my breath for a reply as it hasn't been supplied so far, and I don't mean you chocchip only you and PP and possibly Renton have gave anything resembling a half decent constructive reply so far

103702[/snapback]

 

He made it fairly clear he was looking for yes/no answers like.

103705[/snapback]

 

Thats my answer, it is there if you read it, and its a fucking damn sight better than the absolute crap you spouted about Souness for months

103707[/snapback]

 

All I can see is you skirting round the issue tp avoid having to give the only logical answer, which is a resounding NO to three of the appointments and a partial yes to one of them, in terms of the progress we made under Robson. So that's three unsuccessful appointments out of 4....oh dear.

103708[/snapback]

 

I've said they were comparitively successful. As there are only 2 trophies, why do you consider there are 18 premiership failures a season ?

 

Now what criteria do you think the board should apply when choosing a manager, apart from foresight, in view of the outstanding CV Dalglish had in particular ?

103719[/snapback]

 

Unlike you I think it is perfectly acceptable to look at the performance of a manager and THEN judge whether or not it was a successful appointment. I get the impression that you think that unless it looked like a mistake on the day of the appointment, no one has any right to complain if it turns out to be a fucking shambles a year or two down the line.

 

I agree and have posted elsewhere - Dalglish's CV looked perfect for the job, and you can probably cut Shepherd some slack with that one, but at the end of the day, it was an unsuccessful appointment, given where we were when he was appointed, and where we were when he left. The buck stops with Shepherd.

103720[/snapback]

 

But what can he do other than appoint people with a top CV like Dalglish?

103723[/snapback]

 

 

1.Do more than just look at their CV's, including doing better research into candidates. If he is incapable of this then (aside from stepping down) he should have a better network of people who can do this and have a better grasp of world football.

 

and aside from this:

 

2.Avoid crises

3.Manage crises when they happen

4.Not undermine managers by buying players himself

5.Avoid public scandal and bringing the club into disrepute and creating crises of his own

6.Set a better example generally as he is the top figure at NUFC.

 

Off the top of my head.

[LeazesMag 0]

Being Chairman of NUFC is one of the easiest jobs in the Premiership - full houses every week, shitloads of merchandise sales, sufficient revenues to finance big signings (which can be used to dig yourself out of a hole), and a big enough reputation thanks to Keegan and Hall to attract decent managers and to an extent, players.  If anything Shepherd has eroded this reputation by the way, NOT enhanced it, or else he would never have been forced to appoint Souness last time around.  That's why this appointment is so important, because if he fucks it up this time, he uses up the last of that reputation, and we're just another perennial also-ran.

 

I just think everyone is wasting their time arguing with Leazes though because he cannot see this, and he just adjusts his position to fit around his argument, i.e. Souness to blame for bad signings, Shepherd to thank for good ones.

103638[/snapback]

 

As someone who backed Souness you obviously know what you are talking about....if it is so easy, please explain how directors at other clubs, including ours many years in the past, have allowed well run clubs and top football teams to slide .... You really think we have always had 50,000 gates and played in europe don't you despite being unable to read my posts or check up the figures if you don't believe them ...

103694[/snapback]

 

 

In fairness, although Gemmill takes a lot of stick about being 'pro-Souness', his stance was only ever a 'lets-avoid-a-knee-jerk-reaction-to-an-absolutely-abysmal-appointment'. Shepherd really did back Souness (in the truest sense), because he made the absolutely abysmal appointment in the first place.

103701[/snapback]

 

That is true. I have said earlier, that the appointment of Souness was a knee jerk stupid act as a reaction to the fact that the club needed a few players brought into line and kicked up the arse.

 

However the other 3 appointments that were made, were made with the criteria of them being trophy winners and good team builders at other clubs, with the financial backing given to create the same thing here. So how does that make them anything other than sound professsional appointments ? For those who do not agree with such criteria, please explain what other criteria you would use that the club did not employ ?

103706[/snapback]

 

 

Benefit of hindsight of course but I'd say:

 

Dalglish-probably hard to criticise Freddy on this one. I think Dalglish is a genuine professional with extremely exacting standards. History will judge him as a flop but I dont think I;d blame FF for this one

 

Gullit-had won some stuff at Chelsea so this erred in his favour but even the most cursory glance into his management style/relationships etc etc should have had alarm bells ringing. Arrogance of Souness proportions.

 

Robson-agree with Gemmill on this one. Lucky co-incidence time wise and also the fact that he'd always wanted to manage NUFC and would have done so over any other club all conspired to make Freddy's decision for him. Gets no credit for this.

 

Souness-complete unmitigated disaster of near biblical proportions that we're all still grasping for an explanation for 2 years on. No explanation forthcoming apart from Chairmans ineptitude.

103709[/snapback]

 

the only thing I've ever said is the club are aiming for and appointing proven winning managers, despite claims to the contrary that "good managers won't come here" and other such bollocks, which are totally untrue. Alongside that, the club is giving all of these managers enough money, backing and freedom to create winning conditions at the club, so what else can they do exactly ????

What do you think the club should be doing that they aren't and tell Fred as well because I'm damn sure he would like to know and so would I

 

At the end of the day, we have taken our place as one of the big clubs, see the big 5 debate last week, so what is so bad about that ? It is where we should be, and we are, would anyone argue with that ?

[Renton 17767]

LM, i'm quite aware that i'm loading these questions in my favour and as you disagree i can understand your reluctance to give me satisfaction on this issue, but to pursue my point further:

 

Do YOU think Dalgleish was a sucees ? YES/NO

 

Do YOU think Gullit was a succes ? YES/NO

 

Do YOU think Robson was a succes ? YES/NO

 

Do YOU think Souness was a success ? YES/NO

 

Ideally i would like you to answer yes or by your own criteria, though of course you quite free to answer in any way you see fit. I just feel a direct yes or no to each of these would be a good spring board for ongoing discussion. I don't need to know your criteria, you don't have to justify your answers imo. If someone thinks a certain way, so be it.

103610[/snapback]

 

Well in view of the fact that we waited 22 years to reach a Cup Final, and neither Leeds, Birmingham, Villa, Everton, mackems, West Ham, Portsmouth, Sheffield Wednesday, Wolves and other big city clubs haven't reached one either since we reached one in 1998, nor qualified or competed in the Champions League or even the UEFA Cup, then comparatively speaking it makes us more successful on and off the field than them. And only Arsenal, Liverpool, Man U and Chelsea more successful.

 

All the people who are slagging off the board STILL fail to answer this question, nor answer another one, if the club are so bad and are appointing "shit" managers, what do YOU think they should do that they are not to ensure more success in future ?

 

I'm not holding my breath for a reply as it hasn't been supplied so far, and I don't mean you chocchip only you and PP and possibly Renton have gave anything resembling a half decent constructive reply so far

103702[/snapback]

 

He made it fairly clear he was looking for yes/no answers like.

103705[/snapback]

 

Thats my answer, it is there if you read it, and its a fucking damn sight better than the absolute crap you spouted about Souness for months

103707[/snapback]

 

All I can see is you skirting round the issue tp avoid having to give the only logical answer, which is a resounding NO to three of the appointments and a partial yes to one of them, in terms of the progress we made under Robson. So that's three unsuccessful appointments out of 4....oh dear.

103708[/snapback]

 

I've said they were comparitively successful. As there are only 2 trophies, why do you consider there are 18 premiership failures a season ?

 

Now what criteria do you think the board should apply when choosing a manager, apart from foresight, in view of the outstanding CV Dalglish had in particular ?

103719[/snapback]

 

Unlike you I think it is perfectly acceptable to look at the performance of a manager and THEN judge whether or not it was a successful appointment. I get the impression that you think that unless it looked like a mistake on the day of the appointment, no one has any right to complain if it turns out to be a fucking shambles a year or two down the line.

 

I agree and have posted elsewhere - Dalglish's CV looked perfect for the job, and you can probably cut Shepherd some slack with that one, but at the end of the day, it was an unsuccessful appointment, given where we were when he was appointed, and where we were when he left. The buck stops with Shepherd.

103720[/snapback]

 

But what can he do other than appoint people with a top CV like Dalglish?

103723[/snapback]

 

To be fair, Dalglish is one example from 10 years ago. As I've said, I don't think you can give him too much credit for Robson, as that was just us getting very lucky, and something like that situation is never going to occur again. So we're going to have to rely on Shepherd's judgement of what makes a good manager, and outside of the fluke with Robson, and the Dalglish appointment (which should have worked but ultimately was a failure), his judgement doesn't really look up to much.

103728[/snapback]

 

I think he madfe two poor sigings which were forseeable - Gullit and Souness. Gullit should have been obvious with a bit of research, Souness was obvious full stop. So in total he's made two reasonable signings as chairman (if not obvious choices) - Dalglish and Robson - and two terrible appointments - Gullit and Souness. So it's a draw. Now we have to see what his next choice is. I'm certainly not confident given his history, is Leazes?

[Renton 17767]

Before Shepherd and the Halls, we had 16 [sIXTEEN] years out of europe

 

And 15,000 gates.

103684[/snapback]

 

I will happily take that quote on baord when you tell me the gates of the other clubs during that period in time, football went through a meltdown, deaths on the terraces, hooligans and generally a fairly shite reputation which stopped people from going, not just here but everywhere else I think. Im more than happy to be proved wrong on this one but I'll happily wager that most of the clubs during that time were witnessing far lower gates than they get now.

103732[/snapback]

 

I remember even when we were in the old divison 2 we had gates amongst the top 6 in the country. Tells you something about the fans does that.

[manc-mag 1]

Looking back at the managers appointed post-Keegan, there is a very real argument for appointing some (deserving candidate) who is yet to prove himself in terms of trophies, who is hungry to succeed and who understands that this will require mental strength but also a willingness to be flexible and learn as things progress.

 

In retrospect, what seems worryingly symptomatic of the Dalglish, Gullit and Souness eras is an overwhelming stubborness, which when the chips were down manifested itself in an arrogant habit of resting on the laurels of previous achievements as opposed to looking inwardly to learn where things were going wrong. Ironically, the person who bucked this trend was a white haired man in his 70’s who had managed at a higher level than any of them.

[Guest alex]

The irony of Leazes complaining about words being put into his mouth!

103691[/snapback]

 

Answer the questions Alex of fuck off and stop behaving like a mindless moron..NUFC are competing better than other big city clubs because the directors are running the club in this way, what is so difficult to grasp with that

103696[/snapback]

Now that is a hissy fit!

103697[/snapback]

 

Exasperation at a dumb cunt if anything

103699[/snapback]

Temper, temper

[LeazesMag 0]

I think he madfe two poor sigings which were forseeable - Gullit and Souness. Gullit should have been obvious with a bit of research, Souness was obvious full stop. So in total he's made two reasonable signings as chairman (if not obvious choices) - Dalglish and Robson - and two terrible appointments - Gullit and Souness. So it's a draw. Now we have to see what his next choice is. I'm certainly not confident given his history, is Leazes?

103738[/snapback]

 

I don't know, I've no doubt he wants to get "the right guy", he is certainly not afraid of risking big money which is in itself admirable, IMO anyway as I've said.

I say that because its still fresh in the memory how some people said he was keeping Souness because he was wanting the club to get relegated so as to lower the share price. Laughable.

 

As there are only 2 big trophies a season, its one hell of a yardstick to be judged by as a lot of you are doing.

 

The Gullit experience has clearly burned his fingers, hence his reluctance to go for foreigners [at least so he says, or for a while, maybe this has left him not, time is a healer] but in this respect he is learning from experience and I expect in spite of a lot of you saying he doesn't learn from experience you still slag him off when he indicates he is !]

 

Anyway, whether he will get the right guy we don't know do we, my right guy may not be yours...the board, Shepherd whatever will have an opinion the same as us.

I hope so, there is no Brian Clough out there, who in his days with Hartlepool it was obvious he was going to be a great ..... all I can say is I think he has applied the right criteria in the past [ apart from Souness ] so he'll do it again and rightly so. The right guy might not be one with a shitload of titles, he could be a guy with a League Cup.

 

I still remember the days when we appointed Jim Smith, the 8th EIGHTH choice, from a number of 2nd rate appointments, apart from the alcoholic Howard Kendall [a Newcastle fan], who all turned it down, as I've said we are operating at a different level altogether now though

Edited March 6, 2006 by LeazesMag

[LeazesMag 0]

Before Shepherd and the Halls, we had 16 [sIXTEEN] years out of europe

 

And 15,000 gates.

103684[/snapback]

 

I will happily take that quote on baord when you tell me the gates of the other clubs during that period in time, football went through a meltdown, deaths on the terraces, hooligans and generally a fairly shite reputation which stopped people from going, not just here but everywhere else I think. Im more than happy to be proved wrong on this one but I'll happily wager that most of the clubs during that time were witnessing far lower gates than they get now.

103732[/snapback]

 

I remember even when we were in the old divison 2 we had gates amongst the top 6 in the country. Tells you something about the fans does that.

103740[/snapback]

 

Only during the promotion season and the season before, the Keegan effect.

[manc-mag 1]

Before Shepherd and the Halls, we had 16 [sIXTEEN] years out of europe

 

And 15,000 gates.

103684[/snapback]

 

I will happily take that quote on baord when you tell me the gates of the other clubs during that period in time, football went through a meltdown, deaths on the terraces, hooligans and generally a fairly shite reputation which stopped people from going, not just here but everywhere else I think. Im more than happy to be proved wrong on this one but I'll happily wager that most of the clubs during that time were witnessing far lower gates than they get now.

103732[/snapback]

 

I remember even when we were in the old divison 2 we had gates amongst the top 6 in the country. Tells you something about the fans does that.

103740[/snapback]

 

Only during the promotion season and the season before, the Keegan effect.

103752[/snapback]

 

 

Splitting hairs though tbh. Traditionally, huge support relative to achievement (trophies) and good support relative to other teams generally.

[Guest alex]

I think he madfe two poor sigings which were forseeable - Gullit and Souness. Gullit should have been obvious with a bit of research, Souness was obvious full stop. So in total he's made two reasonable signings as chairman (if not obvious choices) - Dalglish and Robson - and two terrible appointments - Gullit and Souness. So it's a draw. Now we have to see what his next choice is. I'm certainly not confident given his history, is Leazes?

103738[/snapback]

 

I don't know, I've no doubt he wants to get "the right guy", he is certainly not afraid of risking big money which is in itself admirable, IMO anyway as I've said.

I say that because its still fresh in the memory how some people said he was keeping Souness because he was wanting the club to get relegated so as to lower the share price. Laughable.

 

As there are only 2 big trophies a season, its one hell of a yardstick to be judged by as a lot of you are doing.

 

The Gullit experience has clearly burned his fingers, hence his reluctance to go for foreigners [at least so he says, or for a while, maybe this has left him not, time is a healer] but in this respect he is learning from experience and I expect in spite of a lot of you saying he doesn't learn from experience you still slag him off when he indicates he is !]

 

103751[/snapback]

Why do you have to invent stuff to get your point across? Who in their right mind (rather than tongue-in-cheek) reckoned Shepherd was deliberately trying to get us relegated in order to get the share price down?

Also, who has said that Shepherd is being judged purely on our not winning a trophy in his time here?

Also, I don't see how not going for foreign coaches because Gullit was a failure is a sign of Shepherd learning from his mistakes. More a stupid overreaction to things not working out in my opinion but if, again, I am to follow your logic, he should have known not to get Souness following Daglish on the basis getting a Scotman didn't work before.

[Guest alex]

Here's Johnny!

[manc-mag 1]

Here's Johnny!

103761[/snapback]

 

 

[LeazesMag 0]

Why do you have to invent stuff to get your point across? Who in their right mind (rather than tongue-in-cheek) reckoned Shepherd was deliberately trying to get us relegated in order to get the share price down?

 

plenty of posts going around, I can't be arsed to dig them out but not surprisingly you must have missed them as you seem to miss most other things or not read them properly.

 

Also, who has said that Shepherd is being judged purely on our not winning a trophy in his time here?

 

You. As you are saying losing 2 Finals and playing in the Champions League is failure.

 

Also, I don't see how not going for foreign coaches because Gullit was a failure is a sign of Shepherd learning from his mistakes.

 

I would say it is, as he is thinking a more local man would have the interests of the club more to heart, pretty logical and basic thinking, as most people are aware that the big problem he had with Gullit was that he fucked off over to Amsterdam too much and didn't work hard enough for the club

 

More a stupid overreaction to things not working out in my opinion but if, again, I am to follow your logic, he should have known not to get Souness following Daglish on the basis getting a Scotman didn't work before.

103757[/snapback]

 

Then he could have got Alex Ferguson which is just another example of your short sighted vision

Edited March 6, 2006 by LeazesMag

[Guest alex]

Sort that post out and I'll answer it.