Gemmill

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.

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.

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.

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.

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] You're wasting your time mate. Leazes blames me for Souness. Shepherd gets off scot-free. LM, re your post above, I don't know if you've noticed it, but we are a football team on the slide (relatively obviously). We have been for a little while now under the stewardship of your mate Shepherd. Robson fell into Shepherd's lap (not literally, that would be hideous!) - but for that stroke of luck who knows where we would be at the minute.

Latest betting on mackems job. Reid at 14/1 must be the worst bet of all time. Let's hope this list doesn't give Shepherd any bright ideas. McLeish 3/1 Ball 4/1 Newell 7/1 Gregory 8/1 Reid 14/1 Dowie 16/1

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.

Renton, who's the latest pretty boy in your avatar?

Yorke lies!

I've got a pound-a-point bet on with a mackem at work - for every point we finish above them, he owes me a quid and vice versa. I'm currently £29 up, but if they get a new-manager effect going, this could eat into my profits. Most annoying.

Agreed, we should have got rid of Aaron Hughes years ago.

What's he doing tomorrow? Nothing? Get him booked in!! 103538[/snapback] That smiley makes me laugh every time I see it. I would probably take Roeder over everyone other than O'Neill or a top European coach. I'd prefer him to any of Shepherd's famed shortlist.

True enough, but seriously though, he would have to be mad to take that job. He'd be buying and selling in the bargain basement and competing in the Championship or trying to survive in the Premiership on a shoestring. That surely can't be how he sees his next job.

I prefer Doctor Fox to you.

"At West Ham United, in my first year we got 53 points, came seventh in the Premiership, the third highest in their history. The following year we went down with 42 points. Bolton were the team that benefited - they stayed up with 44. But if you put the points together from my two years in charge of West Ham, I finished above Steve McClaren, Sam Allardyce, Alan Curbishley, who are the three big coaching hopes of English football. That's fact." Goooooaaarn Glenn! Also sounds like he's warming to the task here: "Coming back here has reminded me how good it is working with top-class Premiership players" Nicked from here: http://football.guardian.co.uk/Match_Repor...1724438,00.html

Blatantly showing off his robotics on this one.

103522[/snapback] Tears of laughter, I wager.

They'll need to have a whip-round to pay for O'Neill's lobotomy first. THEN do the campaign thing.

He was always Guen to end up at Ibrox. Guffaw!

O'Neill to take over. I feel sorry for McCarthy - he was completely sold down the river by Murray in terms of lack of transfer funds etc. Murray talks a load of crap about not being in the Premiership to make up the numbers as well, that's EXACTLY what they're there for, and EXACTLY what he planned for. Who would want that job?

Rob W is gonna tan your hide for this!

...who posted this over on N-O, but these pictures of Bush playing cricket are class. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/4775096.stm

Welcome aboard.

He's not young - he's 28! And I doubt he'd be as good at a different club tbh. 103361[/snapback] I thought he was about 24. How do you work that one out? 103362[/snapback] You take the date he was born, and the date today, and the answer is the number of years between them.

Watched Crash on Friday night and then it won the Oscar last night. Coincidence? I think not.