Reaching Europe

[Dr Gloom 19933]

 

How convenient. It was only yesterday Leazes, and I only repeated them a few times, only to see you fail to answer a single one but yet somehow argue against a view I never gave. Strange that

 

I dont owe you an answer on anything. The only thing I said about Shepherd for as long as I can remember is he made a mistake in not getting rid of Souness earlier. You , after everything you've said for the past year and all the shit you've continously thrown back in peoples faces, take offense to that and say I dont understand the financial implications and try and lay some pathetic Champ man insult on me.

124714[/snapback]

 

funnily enough that's exactly the stance he took against me on newcastle-online, at which point i gave up. apparantly if you dare criticise our chairman you don't know anything about the club, the game and base all your opinions on championship manager - a game i must confess to never have played.

[Gemmill 35097]

LM, quick! While you're keeping the plates spinning on here they're smashing all over the place in the Shepherd threads on N-O! TYPE FASTER!

[Guest alex]

LM, quick!  While you're keeping the plates spinning on here they're smashing all over the place in the Shepherd threads on N-O!  TYPE FASTER!

125089[/snapback]

[LeazesMag 0]

So Shepherd did make a mistake in not getting rid of Souness earlier then. Regardless of when you guess he'd made his mind up we can both be in agreement that it should have been done before, thanks.

 

So Shepherd has nothing to do with transfer fees? Hes the one who negotites them Leazes not the manager. He'll take the managers advice along with other peoples but its his responsibility. He's the one who decided that 6.5 mill for Boa Morte was too much and 9 mill for Luque was a fair price. Souness will have said I want Boa Morte, its then the chairman who'll negotiate what he feels is a fair price , not the manager! Shepherd is also the one who'll negotiate players contracts. He's the one who sat down with Dyers agent and decided 80K a week was a fair contract, not Souness! Souness will have no doubt said he's an important first team player, we need to keep him etc but the actual negotiation of the contract is down to Shepherd. He obviously backs his managers but why are we continuously taken for a ride, because Shepherds a shit negotiator perhaps?

 

Ive never said Luque was a Shepherd signing. Again you're assigning someone elses view onto me just for the sake of arguing. Theres just no logic in the decsion to turn down the chance to sign two players  for a combined 15 mill yet a few weeks later sign two comaprable players for a combined 25 mill. Just a bad business decision. Especailly when that money could have been put to better use elsewhere.

 

He has to take criticism for when hes sacked managers. To say otherwise is idiotic. It doesnt matter if the next manager is a Robson or a Gullit, a success or a failure. It would be better to put the new manager in place before the season starts and with the transfer budget at his disposal. No matter how Robson did the timing off his appointment was bad. Not one of the sackings was because of the results at the beginning of the season, not one. To make that mistake once is a mistake, to keep repeating it?

 

The stats you keep posting are combined  points in a season, it doesnt makes us fifth most succesful does it. Shepherds league finishes as (full seasons) chairman are ,apart from 3 years under Robson, mediocre to poor. Also when repeating that figure you keep mentioning cups and europe whereas that 5th best figure is purely combined league points. Its also combined since pemiership began so also includes those under Halls reign where on average we have done a lot lot better.

 

The revenue of this club and the ability to pay large transfer fees was in place before Shepherd. Continuing this is not some great achievement.

 

Football and business is about planning. The teams who do not have any plan and are only ever focused on the short term are the ones who continuously fail , sound like anyone?

 

I'll give you a bone, back to my original question of what has Shepherd done that has moved the club from the postion it was in when he took over? The Academy! Shepherd can take credit for that, and you know what its a sign of long term planning too.

 

Congratulations on missing the point about winning the league Leazes, I thought it was simple enough, guess not

 

Like I've said before. No one who you argue against has ever just said Shepherds shit or a failure, but for some reason your keep assigning this extreme viewpoint on people to argue against. What people do is recognise his failings and mistakes. For some reason only known to yourself you feel the need to jump inwith the same old crap. You cant recognise that he's made a mistake EVER. Even when not to do so goes against everything you've ever said you still wont say it.

 

I dont have to name someone better, some mysterious benefactor to be able to point out where he's fucked up. Why should I?

 

I want a better chairman than Shepherd. It might be unrealistic, especailly seeing as he's the major shareholder but doesnt stop me wanting it. Just like winning the league. Like Ive sad many times before maybe its better to have someone in DOF role. Let Shepherd focus completely on the business side where no doubt he has a lot to offer.

125052[/snapback]

 

You STILL miss the point and are making things up, and not reading posts, or both.

 

You don't need to thank me for saying Souness should have been sacked earlier, however I am wondering if you truly understand its not so simple as asking the bank manager for 3 or 5m quid [whatever] because they want to sack the manager...like it is in Championship Manager.

 

Souness decided he preferred Luque to Boa Morte. Thats why we bought Luque and not Boa Morte. Are you seriously suggesting the chairman of a football club would prefer to pay 9.5m for a player than 6m ? Absurd.

 

You still completely miss the point that deciding which players to keep and not is the managers decision. If the manager wants to keep a player and the chairman can't agree a deal with the players agent, you would then slate the chairman ? Wouldn't you ? Then you slate him for agreeing a deal. Oh dear.

 

Football on the field is about appointing the right manager. There are only 2 trophy winning managers a season, or 3 if you count the league cup. No 5 year business plan can change this. Congratulations for continuing to think we have a divine right to employ one of these managers more than everyone else looking for the same thing, without appreciating the fact we are in the position to even attempt to attract them in the first place, through keeping our best players and attempting to attract other top players to play alongside them rather than letting them go and sliding like other big city clubs and ourselves in our own past. This point is well and truly lost on you isn't it.

 

You clearly haven't read any posts on this board properly. The vast majority of people constantly blame Shepherd every time something doesn't work out the way they like, or use hindsight when a player doesn't work out, yet say nothing when a player or manager does work out or we go on a good run. You say you don't mention "fail", but you do. See the bold. 5th best in the country over the last decade, appointing trophy winning managers, qualifying regularly for europe, getting 52k fans through the gate regularly, reaching 2 Cup Finals and buying England players including their number 1 goalscorer is not failure, only those who don't understand failure would consider it to be so.

 

If Shepherd is so bad, it should be a simple matter to find someone with more committment, and motivation towards the club. But you can't. At least you said so, I'll give you that. I don't know why you don't think we all want the best chairman in the world though, with the most money, and best football know how etc etc. Unfortunately some of us are in the real world.

[Gemmill 35097]

Serious question: is anyone reading these long posts of his? I just don't want him to be wasting his time, but I haven't read one for weeks now.

[Guest alex]

How fucking boring, one thing I will say is this though, to suggest the vast majority of people blame Shepherd every time something goes wrong or when a player doesn't work out is utter bollocks made up by LeazesMag in order to avoid answering questions put to him, as per usual. I don't think Shepherd is the worse chairman in the world, far from it, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be criticised re: the Souness affair or when he makes a public relations gaffe or whatever. I get the feeling Leazes would argue that the Spanish brothel thing was irrelevent because Shepherd is better than Doug Ellis.

[LeazesMag 0]

Serious question:  is anyone reading these long posts of his?  I just don't want him to be wasting his time, but I haven't read one for weeks now.

125097[/snapback]

 

...says Gemmill, happy to avoid any issue particularly Souness, Bellamy or financial stuff rather than admit he either got it wrong or doesn't know.....

[Dr Gloom 19933]

Serious question:  is anyone reading these long posts of his?  I just don't want him to be wasting his time, but I haven't read one for weeks now.

125097[/snapback]

 

i am. i think they're funny....in a deranged scary sort of way.

[Gemmill 35097]

Serious question:  is anyone reading these long posts of his?  I just don't want him to be wasting his time, but I haven't read one for weeks now.

125097[/snapback]

 

...says Gemmill, happy to avoid any issue particularly Souness, Bellamy or financial stuff rather than admit he either got it wrong or doesn't know.....

125099[/snapback]

 

...says the KING of issue avoidance when it comes to Shepherd.

[snakehips 0]

....aaaaaaaaaaaaaanyway, it will be absolutely astounding to get into Europe - if we do, that is - following the season we have had.

 

One thing's for sure, the end to our season isn't half exciting imo. If we can beat West Brom tomorrow, the rollercoaster will just keep going

[luckypierre 0]

ha ha

 

You couldnt make this up. Take your own advice Leazes

 

"You STILL miss the point and are making things up, and not reading posts, or both."

 

 

Shepherd decided 6.5 mill was too much for Boa Morte. Shepherd decided not to match the asking price for Anelka. The decision to not buy these players that the manager wanted were not Souness they were Shepherds! Get it! He made a judgement on what he was prepared to pay for these players illustrating what central role he plays in signing players. Its his judgement that decided Luque for 9 mill was better value than Boa Morte for 6.5, do you think this was a mistake?

 

You don't need to thank me for saying Souness should have been sacked earlier, however I am wondering if you truly understand its not so simple as asking the bank manager for 3 or 5m quid [whatever] because they want to sack the manager...like it is in Championship Manager.

so again back to my original question.. Why did it make more financial sense to sack Souness in February and not the previous Summer? We didnt have the 5 mill in the Summer? Surely then considering you wanted Souness out from day one the failure to get rid of him in the summer was a mistake!! All Ive ever said is Shepherd made a mistake in not sacking him earlier. Seeing as I have to spell it out, earlier doesnt mean January or December , it means the previous summer.

You gave the likes of Gol and alex grief all the time for haveing the view that you've now decided to jump on. That Souness was crap but it was unrealistic to get ris at that time, for whatever reasons.

 

You still completely miss the point that deciding which players to keep and not is the managers decision. If the manager wants to keep a player and the chairman can't agree a deal with the players agent, you would then slate the chairman ? Wouldn't you ? Then you slate him for agreeing a deal. Oh dear. 

 

I have an opinion on what a players worth is. So does Shepherd, thats why he wouldnt sign Boa Morte for the asking price. Dyers name is mentioned alongside Man U, Shephred offers him 65K a week. Souness says we need to build the team around him, he gets 80K. Its the chairman who negotiates the contract. If I feel a certain player is worth x , the chairman doesnt offer him that and then the player leaves yes I'll criticise him for it. Its my right, just like what happened with Bernard. If I have a problem with a waste of space like Dyer being 80K a week like you do then I'll criticise him for that. Whats the problem? What I wont do is have a problem with something like you do and try place the blame on someone else so good old freddy remains spotless

 

 

Football on the field is about appointing the right manager. There are only 2 trophy winning managers a season, or 3 if you count the league cup. No 5 year business plan can change this. Congratulations for continuing to think we have a divine right to employ one of these managers more than everyone else looking for the same thing, without appreciating the fact we are in the position to even attempt to attract them in the first place, through keeping our best players and attempting to attract other top players to play alongside them rather than letting them go and sliding like other big city clubs and ourselves in our own past. This point is well and truly lost on you isn't it.

 

I appreciate fully what position we are in comapred to 15 years ago, but thats down to SJH not Shepherd. We are in a worse of position in that respect than were we where when Shepherd took over. How come we only ended up with Souness last time? The point thats lost on you is that it wasnt Shepherd who got is into this postion, he's took over it and damn nearly screwed it all up. Its lost on you that regardless of the arguement about ambition this club needs a certain level of success in order to fulfill its primary goal to Hall and Shepherd, which is to make them money!

 

You clearly haven't read any posts on this board properly. The vast majority of people constantly blame Shepherd every time something doesn't work out the way they like, or use hindsight when a player doesn't work out, yet say nothing when a player or manager does work out or we go on a good run. You say you don't mention "fail", but you do. See the bold. 5th best in the country over the last decade, appointing trophy winning managers, qualifying regularly for europe, getting 52k fans through the gate regularly, reaching 2 Cup Finals and buying England players including their number 1 goalscorer is not failure, only those who don't understand failure would consider it to be so.

 

thanks for ignoring my view on your meaningless stats by the way

 

I havent seen anyone just label Shepherd as shite or a failure. If you have a problem with specifics. Shepherd signed Luque for instance, argue tht specific rather than some imaginary extreme overall view of Shepherd that no one gave. You've done it in this thread!

 

There you go again assigning the previous successes of this club to Shepherd. This club is in the postion to sign these players, attract 52000 people not because of Shepherd. Should we give him credit for not screwing it up even though he came close?

 

If Shepherd is so bad, it should be a simple matter to find someone with more committment, and motivation towards the club. But you can't. At least you said so, I'll give you that. I don't know why you don't think we all want the best chairman in the world though, with the most money, and best football know how etc etc. Unfortunately some of us are in the real world.

 

why? because prospective chairmen walk round like politicians telling us all who they are what they stand for, what they're going to do?

 

yet again Leazes in the real world we wont win the League, it wont stop me wanting it. Just like it wont stop me wanting a better, more professional chairman

 

Anyway thats it for me, like others have said its all long winded and pointless. If you want discuss specifics about him then please do. Stop continuously bringing up this imaginary "Shepherd is complete shit" view to argue because as everyone keeps saying no one thinks that

Edited April 21, 2006 by luckypierre

[TyneBridge 0]

Where do people get that FS decided to buy Boa Morte and not Luque? Daft that.

 

And if the club didn't have money at the time to buy Boa Morte then thats their job to say its not there.

[Guest alex]

Where do people get that FS decided to buy Boa Morte and not Luque? Daft that.

 

And if the club didn't have money at the time to buy Boa Morte then thats their job to say its not there.

125283[/snapback]

Probably from our chasing Boa Morte for months and then subsequently finding the money to buy Luque and Owen.

[Kid Dynamite 6010]

just cos luque isnt worth 9mil doesnt mean that boa morte is worth 6.5mil.

 

i have a feeling that luque could be the biggest flop the premiership has seen since rebrov however!

[TyneBridge 0]

Where do people get that FS decided to buy Boa Morte and not Luque? Daft that.

 

And if the club didn't have money at the time to buy Boa Morte then thats their job to say its not there.

125283[/snapback]

Probably from our chasing Boa Morte for months and then subsequently finding the money to buy Luque and Owen.

125287[/snapback]

 

getting the money in for Bellamy and Jenas must have made a difference.

 

2+2 doesn't equal 5, you don't know if what you say is right and its probably wrong

[Scottish Mag 3]

just cos luque isnt worth 9mil doesnt mean that boa morte is worth 6.5mil.

 

125288[/snapback]

 

The fact he was already an established premiership player with an impressive goal and assist stats for last season probably justified the price tag of 6 million.

[geordieshandy 0]

Where do people get that FS decided to buy Boa Morte and not Luque? Daft that.

 

And if the club didn't have money at the time to buy Boa Morte then thats their job to say its not there.

125283[/snapback]

Probably from our chasing Boa Morte for months and then subsequently finding the money to buy Luque and Owen.

125287[/snapback]

 

getting the money in for Bellamy and Jenas must have made a difference.

 

2+2 doesn't equal 5, you don't know if what you say is right and its probably wrong

125309[/snapback]

 

 

No one really knows, unless your name is Freddie Shepherd, Doug Hall, or Russell Cushing, then all you can do is speculate.

[Guest alex]

Where do people get that FS decided to buy Boa Morte and not Luque? Daft that.

 

And if the club didn't have money at the time to buy Boa Morte then thats their job to say its not there.

125283[/snapback]

Probably from our chasing Boa Morte for months and then subsequently finding the money to buy Luque and Owen.

125287[/snapback]

 

getting the money in for Bellamy and Jenas must have made a difference.

 

2+2 doesn't equal 5, you don't know if what you say is right and its probably wrong

125309[/snapback]

You asked where people got the idea from, I didn't say it was defeinitely right. Given our tranfer dealings over the summer I'd suggest it's prefectly reasonable to suggest the money was available for LBM were we willing to pay the price. I'd suggest Shepherd thought it was too much. Feel free to tell why you think this isn't the case though.

[luckypierre 0]

at no point in time was it suggested we didnt have the cash. We offered 7 for Anelka and 4.5 for Boa Morte iirc. Those players werent bought because Shepherd deicided he wasnt going to meet the asking price, right or wrong its not the point. If it was case of not having the cash why didnt we go back for Boa Morte when we decided not to go ahead with Anelka or vice versa?

 

The point is he does have a role to play when it comes to signing players.

[LeazesMag 0]

at no point in time was it suggested we didnt have the cash. We offered 7 for Anelka and 4.5 for Boa Morte iirc. Those players werent bought because Shepherd deicided he wasnt going to meet the asking price, right or wrong its not the point. If it was case of not having the cash why didnt we go back for Boa Morte when we decided not to go ahead with Anelka or vice versa?

 

The point is he does have a role to play when it comes to signing players.

125325[/snapback]

 

you STILL miss the point.

 

Which is, if the directors so chose, they could say to their manager that they have an annual budget of say, 6m quid to do the best they can with, running the club at a "mediocre" level, like most other big city clubs at the present time, and we did ourselves for decades.

 

They CHOOSE to operate above this level. Do you understand this or not ?

 

And whether you believe Fred interferes with transfers or not is up to you, personally I think its shite of the highest order. The board tell the manager if they can afford the players he wants or not. Simple reason we went for Luque is because through the sales of Bellamy and Jeanarse we had more money so Souness said he would rather have Luque than Boa Morte when it became a bigger transfer pot.

 

And Alex, as I have gone on with you and others about this for a while now, I hardly think making a small remark about it on howaythetoon is "going behind anyones back", so stop behaving like a "little bairn"

 

[Guest alex]

Well it's hardly doing to people's faces is it LM? Not that I'm bothered, more pointed out to that mong Stevie that he doesn't even realise the meaning of the phrase he's using. As for missing the point, I'm guessing you've just done it although LuckyPierre would need to confirm this.

[LeazesMag 0]

Well it's hardly doing to people's faces is it LM? Not that I'm bothered, more pointed out to that mong Stevie that he doesn't even realise the meaning of the phrase he's using. As for missing the point, I'm guessing you've just done it although LuckyPierre would need to confirm this.

125364[/snapback]

 

Whatever. I think you are all wrong, the sad thing is, I hope I am not proved right when Shepherd does go and we end up with some right mong of a board and chairman who runs us like Villa, mackems, Southampton, Everton and all the other big clubs I've mentioned.

 

Too late then though.

 

Or alternatively, I'll be watching the comments with interest when we reach the CL again, by those who claim we will "never be successful under Fred" [whilst forgetting we were there only a few years ago....]...

[geordieshandy 0]

Who claimed we'd never be successful under Shepherd?

[Guest alex]

Well it's hardly doing to people's faces is it LM? Not that I'm bothered, more pointed out to that mong Stevie that he doesn't even realise the meaning of the phrase he's using. As for missing the point, I'm guessing you've just done it although LuckyPierre would need to confirm this.

125364[/snapback]

 

Whatever. I think you are all wrong, the sad thing is, I hope I am not proved right when Shepherd does go and we end up with some right mong of a board and chairman who runs us like Villa, mackems, Southampton, Everton and all the other big clubs I've mentioned.

 

Too late then though.

 

Or alternatively, I'll be watching the comments with interest when we reach the CL again, by those who claim we will "never be successful under Fred" [whilst forgetting we were there only a few years ago....]...

125374[/snapback]

Well I can't speak for LP but I thought he was responding to TyneBridge's point.

[Rob W 0]

"You couldnt make this up. Take your own advice Leazes

 

"You STILL miss the point and are making things up, and not reading posts, or both.""

 

Pierre, take my advice

 

DON'T get in a barney with leazes - hes just come off the anger management drugs

 

I spent MONTHs trying to help the poor lad but...... eventually it had to nbe the Mental Health Act

 

Just keep repeating "its a sickness and he can't really help it...."