Hughton says not many signings this summer.

[Park Life 71]

Err what do Fulham and Brmingham have in common that we don't. Take your time.

 

What do they both have in common? You don't seem desperate for their managers to fail?

 

Did I get it right?

 

No.

 

So you also want them to fail? I am stumped then

 

Here's a clue.

 

ROY HODGSON

 

Managed.

 

985–1990 Malmö

1990–1992 Neuchâtel Xamax

1992–1995 Switzerland

1995–1997 Internazionale

1997–1998 Blackburn Rovers

1999 Internazionale

1999–2000 Grasshopper

2000–2001 Copenhagen

 

*Inc two solid spells as Inter manager.

 

nternazionale

 

Before the European Championships, Hodgson joined Italian Serie A giants Internazionale, where he worked from 1995 to 1997. He presided over a rebuilding phase. Inter had finished 13th and 6th in the seasons prior to his arrival. After a terrible start to the season, Hodgson was brought in and guided the club to a 7th place finish in the 1995–96 season, qualifying for the UEFA Cup. The 1996–97 season saw Inter finish 3rd and reach the 1997 UEFA Cup Final, losing on penalties over two legs. Hodgson says of his time at Inter, "We lacked stars, apart from Paul Ince. It wasn't the Inter we see today of household names. They weren't the best technically but physically they were like machines. The Premier League is like that now, but back then Italy was far ahead."[4] The side Hodgson built would go on to win the UEFA Cup in 1998 and finish runner-up in Serie A under his successor, Luigi Simoni.

 

And now doing wonders at Fulham.

Edited May 2, 2010 by Park Life

[Gejon 2]

I don't see how that connects to McLeish.

[Park Life 71]

I don't see how that connects to McLeish.

 

Rangers

 

His work at Hibs was noticed, and he was linked with several moves to England, before he was appointed as Rangers manager in December 2001[8] after outgoing Rangers manager Dick Advocaat recommended McLeish to chairman David Murray.[9]

 

McLeish was an instant success at Rangers, winning both the Scottish Cup[10] and Scottish League Cup[11] in his first season, but the big prize of the league title was essentially lost before his arrival. His second season saw him go one better when he won the domestic treble, with the help of top players such as Ronald de Boer and Barry Ferguson.[12]

 

Rangers' worsening financial state saw many of his top players leave in the summer of 2003. Celtic won the league comfortably in season 2003–04, and Rangers failed to win any trophies.[13] McLeish was consequently put under pressure from fans after his poor signings and a record run of seven consecutive derby losses to Celtic.[14]

 

The high profile Bosman signings of Jean-Alain Boumsong and Dado Pršo in the close season of 2004–05 gave Rangers renewed hope of regaining the title from Celtic's grasp.[15] McLeish's team won the 2005 league title on a dramatic last day, an outcome that had looked highly unlikely after Rangers fell five points behind leaders Celtic with just four games remaining.[16]

 

After this unexpected success, McLeish and his Rangers team headed into the 2005–06 SPL campaign as favourites to retain the championship. McLeish made a number of signings, despite having little money to spend. These included Julien Rodriguez and Ian Murray. After a reasonable start to the season, including a win over Celtic,[17] Rangers suffered a series of poor results between September and November. This period included a club record of 10 games without a win. However the tenth match of this run, a 1–1 draw with Inter Milan in the Champions League, took Rangers into the knockout stages of the tournament for the first time.[18]

 

Despite the poor domestic form, McLeish guided Rangers to the last 16 of the Champions League, where they were defeated on the away goals rule by Villarreal.[19] They became the first Scottish team to progress this far in the European Cup since 1993, and the first Scottish team to progress through a European group stage.[18] In December, chairman David Murray publicly announced his support for McLeish.[20] Rangers then went on a good run of results in December and January.

 

This run of good results came to a sudden halt when they were defeated 3–0 by Hibernian in the Scottish Cup,[21] prompting protests outside Ibrox against both McLeish and David Murray.[22] On 9 February 2006, it was announced by chairman David Murray that McLeish would be standing down as manager at the end of that season.[23]

 

It was later announced that he would be succeeded by former Olympique Lyonnais manager Paul Le Guen. Rangers beat Hearts 2–0 at Ibrox Stadium in his final match as manager.[24]

[edit] Scotland

 

McLeish said after leaving Rangers that he would not manage another Scottish club, because he felt that he had achieved everything in the Scottish game.[25] He was linked in the media with a number of managerial positions in England while he worked as a television pundit for the BBC and Setanta Sports.

 

McLeish took charge of the Scotland national side on 29 January 2007.[26] His assistants in the job were Roy Aitken and Andy Watson. McLeish's first game in charge of the national team was a UEFA Euro 2008 qualifying match, a 2–1 victory against Georgia on 24 March 2007 at Hampden Park.[27] His second game was an away fixture against Italy on 28 March 2007 which ended in a 2–0 defeat.[28]

 

McLeish's Scotland side then went on to defeat the Faroe Islands away in June,[29] Lithuania at home in September[30] before recording a historic victory in Paris four days later by defeating France 1–0 in the Parc des Princes.[31] James McFadden's 64th-minute strike from 30 yards was enough to earn Scotland the win and returned them to the top of Group B with three games to play. This result has been hailed as one of the Scotland national team's greatest victories.[32] Scotland's next success was at home to Ukraine, winning 3–1 at Hampden on 13 October. McLeish suffered his second defeat as manager, away in Georgia on 17 October. This result left him facing a decider against the World Champions, Italy. Scotland lost the game, McLeish's last, and Italy qualified for the finals.

 

 

[Gejon 2]

So they were both given a chance, made some mistakes and enjoyed some success.

 

Good stuff.

Edited May 2, 2010 by Gejon

[Craig 6682]

Shepherd NEVER owned the club, and neither did the Halls.

 

Do tell me who 'owned' the club between December 1991 and April 1997.

 

I fail to see why people like you harp on about this

 

the Halls, Shepherd (and Fletcher as an employee) ran the club.

Who owned the club Leazes?

 

 

nobody had over 50% of the shares, did they ?

 

Answer the question... who owned it?

 

Although of course you can't because it would be an admission that your initial comment, that I've quoted above is absolute bollocks wouldn't it?

[Matt 0]

Halls owned >50% of the club throughout.

[LeazesMag 0]

Shepherd NEVER owned the club, and neither did the Halls.

 

Do tell me who 'owned' the club between December 1991 and April 1997.

 

I fail to see why people like you harp on about this

 

the Halls, Shepherd (and Fletcher as an employee) ran the club.

Who owned the club Leazes?

 

 

nobody had over 50% of the shares, did they ?

 

Answer the question... who owned it?

 

Although of course you can't because it would be an admission that your initial comment, that I've quoted above is absolute bollocks wouldn't it?

 

I have. Nobody owned it, nobody ever owned 50%

 

Do you think somebody did, if so, who ?

[Craig 6682]

Halls owned >50% of the club throughout.

 

Indeed. But wait for Leazes to state that they only did collectively and not one individual did...

 

Regardless, the percentage is not the point - whether they owned 1%, 10% or 100%, they owned the fucking club!

[Craig 6682]

Shepherd NEVER owned the club, and neither did the Halls.

 

Do tell me who 'owned' the club between December 1991 and April 1997.

 

I fail to see why people like you harp on about this

 

the Halls, Shepherd (and Fletcher as an employee) ran the club.

Who owned the club Leazes?

 

 

nobody had over 50% of the shares, did they ?

 

Answer the question... who owned it?

 

Although of course you can't because it would be an admission that your initial comment, that I've quoted above is absolute bollocks wouldn't it?

 

I have. Nobody owned it, nobody ever owned 50%

 

Do you think somebody did, if so, who ?

 

You said the Halls never owned it. But they had more than 50% of the shares. Club was owned by them - it's indisputable.

[LeazesMag 0]

Halls owned >50% of the club throughout.

 

Indeed. But wait for Leazes to state that they only did collectively and not one individual did...

 

Regardless, the percentage is not the point - whether they owned 1%, 10% or 100%, they owned the fucking club!

 

where are you going with this ? You have said in the past, and I agree, that Keegan is the primary person who did everything that mattered for the club. So where are you going ?

 

I've also posted the extract from his book that says Hall Jnr, Shepherd and Fletcher wanted him to be manager and Sir John Hall didn't.

 

So where are you going ?

[Craig 6682]

Asked the same question 3 times in one post? The steam generator is obviously in full operation, eh Leazes?

 

I'm going nowhere - I'm merely correcting your mistake bonny-lad

[LeazesMag 0]

Shepherd NEVER owned the club, and neither did the Halls.

 

Do tell me who 'owned' the club between December 1991 and April 1997.

 

I fail to see why people like you harp on about this

 

the Halls, Shepherd (and Fletcher as an employee) ran the club.

Who owned the club Leazes?

 

 

nobody had over 50% of the shares, did they ?

 

Answer the question... who owned it?

 

Although of course you can't because it would be an admission that your initial comment, that I've quoted above is absolute bollocks wouldn't it?

 

I have. Nobody owned it, nobody ever owned 50%

 

Do you think somebody did, if so, who ?

 

You said the Halls never owned it. But they had more than 50% of the shares. Club was owned by them - it's indisputable.

 

So how did Shepherd run it all on his own later ? Assuming what you say is true........

[Craig 6682]

Shepherd NEVER owned the club, and neither did the Halls.

 

Do tell me who 'owned' the club between December 1991 and April 1997.

 

I fail to see why people like you harp on about this

 

the Halls, Shepherd (and Fletcher as an employee) ran the club.

Who owned the club Leazes?

 

 

nobody had over 50% of the shares, did they ?

 

Answer the question... who owned it?

 

Although of course you can't because it would be an admission that your initial comment, that I've quoted above is absolute bollocks wouldn't it?

 

I have. Nobody owned it, nobody ever owned 50%

 

Do you think somebody did, if so, who ?

 

You said the Halls never owned it. But they had more than 50% of the shares. Club was owned by them - it's indisputable.

 

So how did Shepherd run it all on his own later ? Assuming what you say is true........

 

When it was PLC you mean? You need to take notice of everything that's posted Leazes - not just what you want to read. Have a look further back where I mention a date period

[LeazesMag 0]

Shepherd NEVER owned the club, and neither did the Halls.

 

Do tell me who 'owned' the club between December 1991 and April 1997.

 

I fail to see why people like you harp on about this

 

the Halls, Shepherd (and Fletcher as an employee) ran the club.

Who owned the club Leazes?

 

 

nobody had over 50% of the shares, did they ?

 

Answer the question... who owned it?

 

Although of course you can't because it would be an admission that your initial comment, that I've quoted above is absolute bollocks wouldn't it?

 

I have. Nobody owned it, nobody ever owned 50%

 

Do you think somebody did, if so, who ?

 

You said the Halls never owned it. But they had more than 50% of the shares. Club was owned by them - it's indisputable.

 

So how did Shepherd run it all on his own later ? Assuming what you say is true........

 

When it was PLC you mean? You need to take notice of everything that's posted Leazes - not just what you want to read. Have a look further back where I mention a date period

 

I fail to see why you are so keen to blame Shepherd for everything ie the last few years and disregard the rest. The point is that he had less than 30% of the shares and along with the Halls, saved the club from oblivion back in 1992 and along with the Halls gave us our best period by miles during their time in charge.

 

Who decided to go PLC ? And who was the quickest to get rid of their shares ?

[Craig 6682]

Where in this thread am I blaming Shepherd? All I've done is pointed out your blindingly obvious mistake.

 

Get back on track man!

[Happy Face 29]

I don't remember you rushing to agree with me at the time, I'm sure pretty much everybody else just harped on about Shepherd being a fat cunt and had to go because everything was so embarrassing. The only person who agreed with me was howaythelads.

 

If you said anything like the above I wouldn't have disagreed.

 

I only argue with you when you're off the mark. For example, you said what a good appointment Roeder was, while I was spot on about it being another downward step on the path of lowered expectation and dwindling returns...

 

http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...st&p=136657

 

Your refusal to say a bad thing about Shepherd meant you defended some of the worst decisions.

 

I said that very phrase often. I said I was "hopeful" that Roeder would turn out well, just like Hughton now in fact. However, at least you agree with me that a manager with one hand tied behind his back is on a hiding to nothing.......at least the managers the Halls and Shepherd appointed were given the support and backing which is the whole point. Not many clubs actually do this, its a matter of choice.

 

Glad you agree with me Leazes. Took your time.

 

As I said, only howaythelads agreed with me when I said all of this a long time ago.

 

Source?

[spongebob toonpants 3957]

ofcourse we've got lower expectations ffs we were relegated less than a year ago and it was a relegation that had been looming for a while.

 

We were scratting around for points pre-Ashley.

 

It is no wonder they are trying to lower expectations when we still have fans trotting out the "we are better than that" routine.

 

You may have also forgotten that he tried to sell and couldn't. There's no queue at the door now we are back either.

Stop repeating their lies man. He called an offer of £400m an insult.

 

I also doubt he is going to sanction anunproven prem manager with a blank chequebook.

He'll NEVER prove himself without funds to do it either. Tying his hands behind his back is dooming him to failure.

 

We would all love a return to yesteryear, but that's not going to happen so much better to be realistic than deluded.

It's not deluded to recognise we're one of the most widely supported teams in the country. We have a huge catchment area that's virtually unopposed and as such there's no reason why we shouldn't compete with the best. I recognise the reasons we can't and won't, they're running the club, it's not deluded to recognise that and argue for more.

 

I will be delighted with 4 or 5 good additions and surviving next year.

4 or 5 additions of what quality? Kids? Championship? Top half rejects?

 

We will then be stronger, no Hughtons worth and be in a far better position to continue building.

Adding 5 players as bad as the ones we have will improve nothing.

 

I am sure this is what will happen and fully support it.

 

 

nice to see people now saying the things I have always said.

 

I thought you said Shepherd never did a thing wrong.

 

you won't find anywhere where I said that.....

 

And the above is no different to what I've ALWAYS said.

 

Seems we both make up total bollocks about what other posters said in hindsight

 

I don't remember you rushing to agree with me at the time, I'm sure pretty much everybody else just harped on about Shepherd being a fat cunt and had to go because everything was so embarrassing. The only person who agreed with me was howaythelads.

 

*cough*

 

I didn't disagree with you ,I appreciated what they did for the club, I didn't even mind that the Halls and FS took dividends and sold up for a profit(willingly or not).

 

I don't understand why you are so obsessed with trying to prove everybody else is always wrong and you were/are always right.

[LeazesMag 0]

Where in this thread am I blaming Shepherd? All I've done is pointed out your blindingly obvious mistake.

 

Get back on track man!

 

I'm on track. Tell us when the Halls had over 50% ?

 

You appear to be a bit narked by this ie in your insistence to blame Shepherd for "everything". If only we had those despicable Trophy Signings and european football now instead of 2nd division players on 3.5 year contracts............

Edited May 3, 2010 by LeazesMag

[peasepud 59]

Where in this thread am I blaming Shepherd? All I've done is pointed out your blindingly obvious mistake.

 

Get back on track man!

 

I'm on track. Tell us when the Halls had over 50% ?

 

You appear to be a bit narked by this ie in your insistence to blame Shepherd for "everything". If only we had those despicable Trophy Signings and european football now instead of 2nd division players on 3.5 year contracts............

 

tbf LM I think you're battering the wrong poster this time like. I cant remember Craig being totally against Shepherd or arguing against big signings etc.

[Craig 6682]

Where in this thread am I blaming Shepherd? All I've done is pointed out your blindingly obvious mistake.

 

Get back on track man!

 

I'm on track. Tell us when the Halls had over 50% ?

 

I already have done if you read the thread. Of course, if you don't believe that to be true, you can always point out what respective percentages Hall, Shepherd & Hall Jnr held prior to April 1997.

 

Bet you don't though.

[LeazesMag 0]

Where in this thread am I blaming Shepherd? All I've done is pointed out your blindingly obvious mistake.

 

Get back on track man!

 

I'm on track. Tell us when the Halls had over 50% ?

 

I already have done if you read the thread. Of course, if you don't believe that to be true, you can always point out what respective percentages Hall, Shepherd & Hall Jnr held prior to April 1997.

 

Bet you don't though.

 

 

I saw that, did the Halls have over 50% between that period ? If so, when did they reduce their holding ? And in any case, as I have pointed out to you - which we agree - Keegan was the person who was behind the rise of the club and the 3 people who appointed him are the ones who should take the credit for doing that too.

 

I can't see what you are arguing about here, unless you just want to argue with me.

[LeazesMag 0]

Where in this thread am I blaming Shepherd? All I've done is pointed out your blindingly obvious mistake.

 

Get back on track man!

 

I'm on track. Tell us when the Halls had over 50% ?

 

You appear to be a bit narked by this ie in your insistence to blame Shepherd for "everything". If only we had those despicable Trophy Signings and european football now instead of 2nd division players on 3.5 year contracts............

 

tbf LM I think you're battering the wrong poster this time like. I cant remember Craig being totally against Shepherd or arguing against big signings etc.

 

not intending to batter anybody PP..........I reckon Craig is fancying a go at me or I've needled him

[The Fish 10783]

I saw that, did the Halls have over 50% between that period ? If so, when did they reduce their holding ? And in any case, as I have pointed out to you - which we agree - Keegan was the person who was behind the rise of the club and the 3 people who appointed him are the ones who should take the credit for doing that too.

I can't see what you are arguing about here, unless you just want to argue with me.

 

Why are they to take credit for the successes, but are absolved of the failures?

[Park Life 71]

So they were both given a chance, made some mistakes and enjoyed some success.

 

Good stuff.

 

Yeah the Rangers and Inter boards sat down and said "Yeah we'll give some dopey cunt a chance"...Everyone agreed and the meetings were closed.

 

You stupid fuck.

[Park Life 71]

I don't remember you rushing to agree with me at the time, I'm sure pretty much everybody else just harped on about Shepherd being a fat cunt and had to go because everything was so embarrassing. The only person who agreed with me was howaythelads.

 

If you said anything like the above I wouldn't have disagreed.

 

I only argue with you when you're off the mark. For example, you said what a good appointment Roeder was, while I was spot on about it being another downward step on the path of lowered expectation and dwindling returns...

 

http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...st&p=136657

 

Your refusal to say a bad thing about Shepherd meant you defended some of the worst decisions.

 

I said that very phrase often. I said I was "hopeful" that Roeder would turn out well, just like Hughton now in fact. However, at least you agree with me that a manager with one hand tied behind his back is on a hiding to nothing.......at least the managers the Halls and Shepherd appointed were given the support and backing which is the whole point. Not many clubs actually do this, its a matter of choice.

 

Glad you agree with me Leazes. Took your time.

 

As I said, only howaythelads agreed with me when I said all of this a long time ago.

 

Source?

 

That is the kiss of death.