sweetleftpeg 0 Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 The thing is Leazes, the attitude towards Fat Fred and people wanting him out is a not a knee jerk reaction. A decade of bad board decisions has brougt me and many others to question what we'll actually achieve under this current board. Which is fuck all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol 0 Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 Has anyone said we should have bought defenders instead of Martins? Can't remember that like. We should have bought defenders instead of Duff, which many people said at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gejon 2 Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 Has anyone said we should have bought defenders instead of Martins? Can't remember that like. We should have bought defenders instead of Duff, which many people said at the time. Stop scratching your mates dicks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 Pardon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 The def thing should have been sorted in the summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bombadil 0 Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 I have said for ages that it is a mystery how Hall Jnr gets away with the criticism for appointing Souness, for instance, as the majority shareholder. Despite pointing it out on numerous occasions, the usual - intelligent - people still blame Shepherd and give him all the flak. That's just not true and yet another example of you making things up. I don't think there's anyone who actually thinks Hall junior is anything but a greedy, selfish leech who uses the club to make money for himself. The reason why Shepherd gets "all the flak" is because in his role as chairman, he is the board's figurehead and the exponent who is present in the media. Shepherd is quite obviously the lesser of the two evils, but that doesn't mean he hasn't proven himself to be incompetent and unprofessional and not fit for the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21626 Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 (edited) I have said for ages that it is a mystery how Hall Jnr gets away with the criticism for appointing Souness, for instance, as the majority shareholder. Despite pointing it out on numerous occasions, the usual - intelligent - people still blame Shepherd and give him all the flak. That's just not true and yet another example of you making things up. I don't think there's anyone who actually thinks Hall junior is anything but a greedy, selfish leech who uses the club to make money for himself. The reason why Shepherd gets "all the flak" is because in his role as chairman, he is the board's figurehead and the exponent who is present in the media. Shepherd is quite obviously the lesser of the two evils, but that doesn't mean he hasn't proven himself to be incompetent and unprofessional and not fit for the job. True. I was going to post something similar, but in a moment of clarity realised the sheer futility of it. Edited February 27, 2007 by Renton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 28, 2007 Author Share Posted February 28, 2007 I have said for ages that it is a mystery how Hall Jnr gets away with the criticism for appointing Souness, for instance, as the majority shareholder. Despite pointing it out on numerous occasions, the usual - intelligent - people still blame Shepherd and give him all the flak. That's just not true and yet another example of you making things up. I don't think there's anyone who actually thinks Hall junior is anything but a greedy, selfish leech who uses the club to make money for himself. The reason why Shepherd gets "all the flak" is because in his role as chairman, he is the board's figurehead and the exponent who is present in the media. Shepherd is quite obviously the lesser of the two evils, but that doesn't mean he hasn't proven himself to be incompetent and unprofessional and not fit for the job. despite qualifying for europe more than anyone else bar 4 clubs ? You are making the mistake many people do, by confusing some of his press comments with the fact that the performance on the pitch is what matters most to a football club. I don't give a rats arse if he says bollocks about "Geordie Nation", and neither did people when the club was in the Champions League, and neither did people when SJH said exactly the same thing. Would a chairman and a board who were upstanding gentlemen who didn't back their managers be better for you ? Believe me, it would not. Noelie will agree, having supported the club through decades of mismanagement where such people as I describe ran the club, thought survival in the top league was success, were proud that they built a new stand like Watfords, and left it looking at the 3rd division. Actually, Noelie won't agree, because he appears to think the club he left behind in the 1950's was the same as the one the current board found in 1992. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio 0 Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 I have said for ages that it is a mystery how Hall Jnr gets away with the criticism for appointing Souness, for instance, as the majority shareholder. Despite pointing it out on numerous occasions, the usual - intelligent - people still blame Shepherd and give him all the flak. That's just not true and yet another example of you making things up. I don't think there's anyone who actually thinks Hall junior is anything but a greedy, selfish leech who uses the club to make money for himself. The reason why Shepherd gets "all the flak" is because in his role as chairman, he is the board's figurehead and the exponent who is present in the media. Shepherd is quite obviously the lesser of the two evils, but that doesn't mean he hasn't proven himself to be incompetent and unprofessional and not fit for the job. despite qualifying for europe more than anyone else bar 4 clubs ? You are making the mistake many people do, by confusing some of his press comments with the fact that the performance on the pitch is what matters most to a football club. I don't give a rats arse if he says bollocks about "Geordie Nation", and neither did people when the club was in the Champions League, and neither did people when SJH said exactly the same thing. Would a chairman and a board who were upstanding gentlemen who didn't back their managers be better for you ? Believe me, it would not. Noelie will agree, having supported the club through decades of mismanagement where such people as I describe ran the club, thought survival in the top league was success, were proud that they built a new stand like Watfords, and left it looking at the 3rd division. Actually, Noelie won't agree, because he appears to think the club he left behind in the 1950's was the same as the one the current board found in 1992. 13th, 13th, 11th, 11th, 4th, 3rd, 5th, 14th, 7th, (Currently 11th) In the nine full seasons Shepherd has been chairman we've only qualified for Europe 3 times through league positions, the other times it's been through the back door whether it be in the Intertoto or because the FA cup final winners had already qualified for the Champions League. With the financial resources the club has an average league position of 9th simply isn't good enough, especially when you consider where the club was when Shepherd took charge, we've also finished in the bottom half of the league more often than in the top half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21626 Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 I have said for ages that it is a mystery how Hall Jnr gets away with the criticism for appointing Souness, for instance, as the majority shareholder. Despite pointing it out on numerous occasions, the usual - intelligent - people still blame Shepherd and give him all the flak. That's just not true and yet another example of you making things up. I don't think there's anyone who actually thinks Hall junior is anything but a greedy, selfish leech who uses the club to make money for himself. The reason why Shepherd gets "all the flak" is because in his role as chairman, he is the board's figurehead and the exponent who is present in the media. Shepherd is quite obviously the lesser of the two evils, but that doesn't mean he hasn't proven himself to be incompetent and unprofessional and not fit for the job. despite qualifying for europe more than anyone else bar 4 clubs ? You are making the mistake many people do, by confusing some of his press comments with the fact that the performance on the pitch is what matters most to a football club. I don't give a rats arse if he says bollocks about "Geordie Nation", and neither did people when the club was in the Champions League, and neither did people when SJH said exactly the same thing. Would a chairman and a board who were upstanding gentlemen who didn't back their managers be better for you ? Believe me, it would not. Noelie will agree, having supported the club through decades of mismanagement where such people as I describe ran the club, thought survival in the top league was success, were proud that they built a new stand like Watfords, and left it looking at the 3rd division. Actually, Noelie won't agree, because he appears to think the club he left behind in the 1950's was the same as the one the current board found in 1992. 13th, 13th, 11th, 11th, 4th, 3rd, 5th, 14th, 7th, (Currently 11th) In the nine full seasons Shepherd has been chairman we've only qualified for Europe 3 times through league positions, the other times it's been through the back door whether it be in the Intertoto or because the FA cup final winners had already qualified for the Champions League. With the financial resources the club has an average league position of 9th simply isn't good enough, especially when you consider where the club was when Shepherd took charge, we've also finished in the bottom half of the league more often than in the top half. Add in no silverware and the fact that in most seasons the standard of football has been low, often painful to watch. This is success in LeazesMag's eyes though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 28, 2007 Author Share Posted February 28, 2007 I have said for ages that it is a mystery how Hall Jnr gets away with the criticism for appointing Souness, for instance, as the majority shareholder. Despite pointing it out on numerous occasions, the usual - intelligent - people still blame Shepherd and give him all the flak. That's just not true and yet another example of you making things up. I don't think there's anyone who actually thinks Hall junior is anything but a greedy, selfish leech who uses the club to make money for himself. The reason why Shepherd gets "all the flak" is because in his role as chairman, he is the board's figurehead and the exponent who is present in the media. Shepherd is quite obviously the lesser of the two evils, but that doesn't mean he hasn't proven himself to be incompetent and unprofessional and not fit for the job. despite qualifying for europe more than anyone else bar 4 clubs ? You are making the mistake many people do, by confusing some of his press comments with the fact that the performance on the pitch is what matters most to a football club. I don't give a rats arse if he says bollocks about "Geordie Nation", and neither did people when the club was in the Champions League, and neither did people when SJH said exactly the same thing. Would a chairman and a board who were upstanding gentlemen who didn't back their managers be better for you ? Believe me, it would not. Noelie will agree, having supported the club through decades of mismanagement where such people as I describe ran the club, thought survival in the top league was success, were proud that they built a new stand like Watfords, and left it looking at the 3rd division. Actually, Noelie won't agree, because he appears to think the club he left behind in the 1950's was the same as the one the current board found in 1992. 13th, 13th, 11th, 11th, 4th, 3rd, 5th, 14th, 7th, (Currently 11th) In the nine full seasons Shepherd has been chairman we've only qualified for Europe 3 times through league positions, the other times it's been through the back door whether it be in the Intertoto or because the FA cup final winners had already qualified for the Champions League. With the financial resources the club has an average league position of 9th simply isn't good enough, especially when you consider where the club was when Shepherd took charge, we've also finished in the bottom half of the league more often than in the top half. Add in no silverware and the fact that in most seasons the standard of football has been low, often painful to watch. This is success in LeazesMag's eyes though. Who said it is success ? Shame you miss the point, Renton. You should surely have got it by now. Perhaps you can tell us all those superior boards that have won things in the last decade and qualified more for europe ? Just to emphasise that there are not in fact, too many boards and clubs superior to us........all relative mate. Noelie will also tell you all the trophies we won between the 1950's and 1992, as he appears to think we carried on doing this for all those years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 28, 2007 Author Share Posted February 28, 2007 I have said for ages that it is a mystery how Hall Jnr gets away with the criticism for appointing Souness, for instance, as the majority shareholder. Despite pointing it out on numerous occasions, the usual - intelligent - people still blame Shepherd and give him all the flak. That's just not true and yet another example of you making things up. I don't think there's anyone who actually thinks Hall junior is anything but a greedy, selfish leech who uses the club to make money for himself. The reason why Shepherd gets "all the flak" is because in his role as chairman, he is the board's figurehead and the exponent who is present in the media. Shepherd is quite obviously the lesser of the two evils, but that doesn't mean he hasn't proven himself to be incompetent and unprofessional and not fit for the job. despite qualifying for europe more than anyone else bar 4 clubs ? You are making the mistake many people do, by confusing some of his press comments with the fact that the performance on the pitch is what matters most to a football club. I don't give a rats arse if he says bollocks about "Geordie Nation", and neither did people when the club was in the Champions League, and neither did people when SJH said exactly the same thing. Would a chairman and a board who were upstanding gentlemen who didn't back their managers be better for you ? Believe me, it would not. Noelie will agree, having supported the club through decades of mismanagement where such people as I describe ran the club, thought survival in the top league was success, were proud that they built a new stand like Watfords, and left it looking at the 3rd division. Actually, Noelie won't agree, because he appears to think the club he left behind in the 1950's was the same as the one the current board found in 1992. 13th, 13th, 11th, 11th, 4th, 3rd, 5th, 14th, 7th, (Currently 11th) In the nine full seasons Shepherd has been chairman we've only qualified for Europe 3 times through league positions, the other times it's been through the back door whether it be in the Intertoto or because the FA cup final winners had already qualified for the Champions League. With the financial resources the club has an average league position of 9th simply isn't good enough, especially when you consider where the club was when Shepherd took charge, we've also finished in the bottom half of the league more often than in the top half. In the 40 years preceding 1992, we qualified for europe ONCE by virtue of league position on merit, despite having the potential to fill a big stadium, buy England players, keep our best players. We also finished in the top half of the table ten times from the late 1950's until that time. Is our last decade a big improvement, or not ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 Fuckin' hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 28, 2007 Author Share Posted February 28, 2007 Fuckin' hell. aye before Noelie ie Tony, says this is "nonsense" he should check the record books ........ or chuck his old telescope away as it hasn't been working too well ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 Fuckin' hell. aye before Noelie ie Tony, says this is "nonsense" he should check the record books ........ or chuck his old telescope away as it hasn't been working too well ... Aye, that's what I was getting at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio 0 Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 I have said for ages that it is a mystery how Hall Jnr gets away with the criticism for appointing Souness, for instance, as the majority shareholder. Despite pointing it out on numerous occasions, the usual - intelligent - people still blame Shepherd and give him all the flak. That's just not true and yet another example of you making things up. I don't think there's anyone who actually thinks Hall junior is anything but a greedy, selfish leech who uses the club to make money for himself. The reason why Shepherd gets "all the flak" is because in his role as chairman, he is the board's figurehead and the exponent who is present in the media. Shepherd is quite obviously the lesser of the two evils, but that doesn't mean he hasn't proven himself to be incompetent and unprofessional and not fit for the job. despite qualifying for europe more than anyone else bar 4 clubs ? You are making the mistake many people do, by confusing some of his press comments with the fact that the performance on the pitch is what matters most to a football club. I don't give a rats arse if he says bollocks about "Geordie Nation", and neither did people when the club was in the Champions League, and neither did people when SJH said exactly the same thing. Would a chairman and a board who were upstanding gentlemen who didn't back their managers be better for you ? Believe me, it would not. Noelie will agree, having supported the club through decades of mismanagement where such people as I describe ran the club, thought survival in the top league was success, were proud that they built a new stand like Watfords, and left it looking at the 3rd division. Actually, Noelie won't agree, because he appears to think the club he left behind in the 1950's was the same as the one the current board found in 1992. 13th, 13th, 11th, 11th, 4th, 3rd, 5th, 14th, 7th, (Currently 11th) In the nine full seasons Shepherd has been chairman we've only qualified for Europe 3 times through league positions, the other times it's been through the back door whether it be in the Intertoto or because the FA cup final winners had already qualified for the Champions League. With the financial resources the club has an average league position of 9th simply isn't good enough, especially when you consider where the club was when Shepherd took charge, we've also finished in the bottom half of the league more often than in the top half. In the 40 years preceding 1992, we qualified for europe ONCE by virtue of league position on merit, despite having the potential to fill a big stadium, buy England players, keep our best players. We also finished in the top half of the table ten times from the late 1950's until that time. Is our last decade a big improvement, or not ? Stop living in the past. Shepherd took over a club 9 years ago that had finished 2nd in the league twice and had just broke the World record transfer fee in signing Alan Shearer, since then we've finished in the bottom half of the league more than the top, won no silverware and the club are now £80 million in debt. You seem to be saying he's done a good job because we are better off than we were 30 years ago, even though he's transformed an cash rich club from the top 2 in the league to an average midtable club without a pot to piss in since he's been chairman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 And sadly, you can't argue with that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21626 Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 And sadly, you can't argue with that Leazes can, and will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 28, 2007 Author Share Posted February 28, 2007 I have said for ages that it is a mystery how Hall Jnr gets away with the criticism for appointing Souness, for instance, as the majority shareholder. Despite pointing it out on numerous occasions, the usual - intelligent - people still blame Shepherd and give him all the flak. That's just not true and yet another example of you making things up. I don't think there's anyone who actually thinks Hall junior is anything but a greedy, selfish leech who uses the club to make money for himself. The reason why Shepherd gets "all the flak" is because in his role as chairman, he is the board's figurehead and the exponent who is present in the media. Shepherd is quite obviously the lesser of the two evils, but that doesn't mean he hasn't proven himself to be incompetent and unprofessional and not fit for the job. despite qualifying for europe more than anyone else bar 4 clubs ? You are making the mistake many people do, by confusing some of his press comments with the fact that the performance on the pitch is what matters most to a football club. I don't give a rats arse if he says bollocks about "Geordie Nation", and neither did people when the club was in the Champions League, and neither did people when SJH said exactly the same thing. Would a chairman and a board who were upstanding gentlemen who didn't back their managers be better for you ? Believe me, it would not. Noelie will agree, having supported the club through decades of mismanagement where such people as I describe ran the club, thought survival in the top league was success, were proud that they built a new stand like Watfords, and left it looking at the 3rd division. Actually, Noelie won't agree, because he appears to think the club he left behind in the 1950's was the same as the one the current board found in 1992. 13th, 13th, 11th, 11th, 4th, 3rd, 5th, 14th, 7th, (Currently 11th) In the nine full seasons Shepherd has been chairman we've only qualified for Europe 3 times through league positions, the other times it's been through the back door whether it be in the Intertoto or because the FA cup final winners had already qualified for the Champions League. With the financial resources the club has an average league position of 9th simply isn't good enough, especially when you consider where the club was when Shepherd took charge, we've also finished in the bottom half of the league more often than in the top half. In the 40 years preceding 1992, we qualified for europe ONCE by virtue of league position on merit, despite having the potential to fill a big stadium, buy England players, keep our best players. We also finished in the top half of the table ten times from the late 1950's until that time. Is our last decade a big improvement, or not ? Stop living in the past. Shepherd took over a club 9 years ago that had finished 2nd in the league twice and had just broke the World record transfer fee in signing Alan Shearer, since then we've finished in the bottom half of the league more than the top, won no silverware and the club are now £80 million in debt. You seem to be saying he's done a good job because we are better off than we were 30 years ago, even though he's transformed an cash rich club from the top 2 in the league to an average midtable club without a pot to piss in since he's been chairman. We haven't had as good a manager as Keegan. Who was chosen and persuaded to join the club by Shepherd, Hall Jnr and Fletcher, not SJH who you are giving the credit to. The board and major shareholders have continued to back ALL their managers since then, so they have gave ALL their managers the same opportunity, whoever the "figurehead" was. These decisions are taken at board level, and not solely by a chairman. We have qualified more than any club - bar 4 - for europe in the last decade, on merit. So stop living in the past. Also - look at the qualities of the people concerned. Would you prefer an unambitious board or one who showed ambition for the club ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio 0 Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 And sadly, you can't argue with that Leazes can, and will. You were right. It really is a waste of time and effort replying to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Steve_Howey 0 Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 I'm dying to join this thread but I haven't got a clue what LM's point is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio 0 Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 I'm dying to join this thread but I haven't got a clue what LM's point is Basically he's telling us how great Shepherd is as chairman for backing managers in the transfer market yet at the same time he's telling us how shit this new West Ham board is for backing their manager in the transfer market. He's also saying he believes Keegan when he says it wasn't Sir John Hall who wanted him as manager even though KK is clearly bitter towards SJH in his book yet doesn't believe the things Sir Bobby says in his book about Shepherd because he must be bitter towards Fat Freddie even though he hasn't read it. Also something about pre 1992 and that Noelie has a telescope. You'll get the hang of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21924 Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 And sadly, you can't argue with that Leazes can, and will. You were right. It really is a waste of time and effort replying to him. i just spent a few minutes composing a post and then realised better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 28, 2007 Author Share Posted February 28, 2007 And sadly, you can't argue with that Leazes can, and will. You were right. It really is a waste of time and effort replying to him. waste of time trying to make you see sense more like it As for replying, you haven't replied. The whole gist of all these copy and paste posts from you and your chums is - do you want Fred out ? Yes or no. If yes, who do you think will be better than him, unless you are prepared to change for someone worse ? So - what about replying, because I haven't seen either you or your chums reply to this after all this time ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21626 Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 Leazes, seriously, you've been repeating the same copy and paste post for years now, you never adapt your argument to answer other peoples points. How you have the audacity to criticise others (and just about everyone disagrees with you) beggars belief. Assuming you aren't literally using Ctrl C and V, don't you ever get bored of making the same pointless comparisons to the 80s and 70s? Noelie has you sussed perfectly; deep down you must know he is right or you are just to pigheaded to see it. For the last time, considering the very healthy state of the club Shepherd inherited, I think he has done a pretty shabby job, reflected by an average of 9th position in the league, no silverware, and gradual decline, only temporarily halted by Robson, the obvious choice at the time (although according to his book he even nearly blew that). Apart from Dalglish and Robson, I think the management appointments have been woeful, not to mention his poor timing and crass public comments, and the bloated dividends he has awarded himself. The question of a takeover is academic now, as Shepherd has damaged the clubs finances to the extent no-one is interested. If someone did become available, I'd make my decision then whether it was worth it or not. Chances are I would accept a gamble with another board though, as this clown is taking us nowhere. It's not going to happen though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now