Robbie Keane

[Flair 0]

The old guard at it again.

[Guest]

You're on ignore No response then? Shock.

 

the Halls and Shepherd ran the club for 15 years, not 3 lad.

 

 

 

But that's nothing to do with the point you made. You stated that Ashley was lowering my expectations. I responded by saying they were already low when he bought the club

 

How much more stupid can you be though?

[LeazesMag 0]

You're on ignore No response then? Shock.

 

the Halls and Shepherd ran the club for 15 years, not 3 lad.

 

 

 

But that's nothing to do with the point you made. You stated that Ashley was lowering my expectations. I responded by saying they were already low when he bought the club

 

How much more stupid can you be though?

 

lower than what ? Booing for finishing 5th ? The lowest we finished was 14th, would you now be happy with finishing 14th ?

[Guest]

You're on ignore No response then? Shock.

 

the Halls and Shepherd ran the club for 15 years, not 3 lad.

 

 

 

But that's nothing to do with the point you made. You stated that Ashley was lowering my expectations. I responded by saying they were already low when he bought the club

 

How much more stupid can you be though?

 

lower than what ? Booing for finishing 5th ? The lowest we finished was 14th, would you now be happy with finishing 14th ?

 

 

I'd be happy finishing 14th because I actually grasp the concept of the club going through a change in culture that needs to be made. Do you think 14th is acceptable for a team that is paying it's main striker over £100,000 per week. Perhaps you can name me another club that has ever finished as low as 14th with a £100k+ performer on the wage bill? I don't think I can name one.

[LeazesMag 0]

You're on ignore No response then? Shock.

 

the Halls and Shepherd ran the club for 15 years, not 3 lad.

 

 

 

But that's nothing to do with the point you made. You stated that Ashley was lowering my expectations. I responded by saying they were already low when he bought the club

 

How much more stupid can you be though?

 

lower than what ? Booing for finishing 5th ? The lowest we finished was 14th, would you now be happy with finishing 14th ?

 

 

I'd be happy finishing 14th because I actually grasp the concept of the club going through a change in culture that needs to be made. Do you think 14th is acceptable for a team that is paying it's main striker over £100,000 per week. Perhaps you can name me another club that has ever finished as low as 14th with a £100k+ performer on the wage bill? I don't think I can name one.

 

Where were Newcastle United in 1992 when the Halls and Shepherd took over the club ? How do you feel about your man also being happy to finish 14th and harbour no particular ambition to finish higher than that ?

 

I'm trying to be patient here, and hopefully you may actually grasp something.

[Guest]

Yawn.

 

I suppose appointing Chris Hughton is unambitious but appointing Kevin Keegan, who had never managed before, was a statement of intent to the football world ?

[LeazesMag 0]

Yawn.

 

I suppose appointing Chris Hughton is unambitious but appointing Kevin Keegan, who had never managed before, was a statement of intent to the football world ?

 

see thompers, you don't answer me, because you harp on about the last few years but are unable to put the whole Hall/Shepherd era into it's correct context.

 

Mike Ashley will never match the european qualifications and league positions, the changes to the club, the raising of the clubs profile, that they did while he has a hole in his arse.

 

You should let this go, and accept it. Finishing 14th is not good enough for a club like us, it never is, and we need owners who realise this and understand this and attempt to do better, much better.

[Guest]

Yawn.

 

I suppose appointing Chris Hughton is unambitious but appointing Kevin Keegan, who had never managed before, was a statement of intent to the football world ?

 

see thompers, you don't answer me, because you harp on about the last few years but are unable to put the whole Hall/Shepherd era into it's correct context.

 

Mike Ashley will never match the european qualifications and league positions, the changes to the club, the raising of the clubs profile, that they did while he has a hole in his arse.

 

You should let this go, and accept it. Finishing 14th is not good enough for a club like us, it never is, and we need owners who realise this and understand this and attempt to do better, much better.

 

 

But Shepherd's Newcastle finished 14th after tens of millions in player purchases. Surely that'd be considered worse than finishing 14th during a period of balancing the books?

[toon_don 0]

Yawn.

 

I suppose appointing Chris Hughton is unambitious but appointing Kevin Keegan, who had never managed before, was a statement of intent to the football world ?

 

see thompers, you don't answer me, because you harp on about the last few years but are unable to put the whole Hall/Shepherd era into it's correct context.

 

Mike Ashley will never match the european qualifications and league positions, the changes to the club, the raising of the clubs profile, that they did while he has a hole in his arse.

 

You should let this go, and accept it. Finishing 14th is not good enough for a club like us, it never is, and we need owners who realise this and understand this and attempt to do better, much better.

 

To be fair, if, hypothetically, Hall and Shepherd were to take over now, they'd be unlikely to replicate that sort of success either. However ambitious you are (and that's not to say we shouldn't aspire to great things, of course we should), to do the kind of things we did in the mid-90s would require someone with Man City levels of wealth to chuck money at us. No-one should ever forget or denigrate the success we had under that regime, but we shouldn't repeat their mistakes either.

 

If we were to get Keane, even on loan, I don't see how anyone could argue we haven't shown a reasonable level of ambition in the transfer market.

[Guest]

Yawn.

 

I suppose appointing Chris Hughton is unambitious but appointing Kevin Keegan, who had never managed before, was a statement of intent to the football world ?

 

see thompers, you don't answer me, because you harp on about the last few years but are unable to put the whole Hall/Shepherd era into it's correct context.

 

Mike Ashley will never match the european qualifications and league positions, the changes to the club, the raising of the clubs profile, that they did while he has a hole in his arse.

 

You should let this go, and accept it. Finishing 14th is not good enough for a club like us, it never is, and we need owners who realise this and understand this and attempt to do better, much better.

 

To be fair, if, hypothetically, Hall and Shepherd were to take over now, they'd be unlikely to replicate that sort of success either. However ambitious you are (and that's not to say we shouldn't aspire to great things, of course we should), to do the kind of things we did in the mid-90s would require someone with Man City levels of wealth to chuck money at us. No-one should ever forget or denigrate the success we had under that regime, but we shouldn't repeat their mistakes either.

 

If we were to get Keane, even on loan, I don't see how anyone could argue we haven't shown a reasonable level of ambition in the transfer market.

 

 

Exactly, but Leazes seems to think the way to approach it is by borrowing money and trying to match them Let's get into debt trying to compete with the oil tycoons, how sensible

[LeazesMag 0]

Yawn.

 

I suppose appointing Chris Hughton is unambitious but appointing Kevin Keegan, who had never managed before, was a statement of intent to the football world ?

 

see thompers, you don't answer me, because you harp on about the last few years but are unable to put the whole Hall/Shepherd era into it's correct context.

 

Mike Ashley will never match the european qualifications and league positions, the changes to the club, the raising of the clubs profile, that they did while he has a hole in his arse.

 

You should let this go, and accept it. Finishing 14th is not good enough for a club like us, it never is, and we need owners who realise this and understand this and attempt to do better, much better.

 

To be fair, if, hypothetically, Hall and Shepherd were to take over now, they'd be unlikely to replicate that sort of success either. However ambitious you are (and that's not to say we shouldn't aspire to great things, of course we should), to do the kind of things we did in the mid-90s would require someone with Man City levels of wealth to chuck money at us. No-one should ever forget or denigrate the success we had under that regime, but we shouldn't repeat their mistakes either.

 

If we were to get Keane, even on loan, I don't see how anyone could argue we haven't shown a reasonable level of ambition in the transfer market.

 

I disagree. The only player we have bought is a below average full back for 1m quid. What money are you talking about here, and how do you think he can get the crowds [and revenue] back to their old levels ?

 

Edit. I have never actually claimed the Halls and Shepherd can match the arabs or Abramovic, only that they were right at their particular time, but the one thing that has to remain constant is an awareness of the size of the football club and hence having the correct ambition for it.

Edited August 29, 2010 by LeazesMag

[Guest]

Yawn.

 

I suppose appointing Chris Hughton is unambitious but appointing Kevin Keegan, who had never managed before, was a statement of intent to the football world ?

 

see thompers, you don't answer me, because you harp on about the last few years but are unable to put the whole Hall/Shepherd era into it's correct context.

 

Mike Ashley will never match the european qualifications and league positions, the changes to the club, the raising of the clubs profile, that they did while he has a hole in his arse.

 

You should let this go, and accept it. Finishing 14th is not good enough for a club like us, it never is, and we need owners who realise this and understand this and attempt to do better, much better.

 

To be fair, if, hypothetically, Hall and Shepherd were to take over now, they'd be unlikely to replicate that sort of success either. However ambitious you are (and that's not to say we shouldn't aspire to great things, of course we should), to do the kind of things we did in the mid-90s would require someone with Man City levels of wealth to chuck money at us. No-one should ever forget or denigrate the success we had under that regime, but we shouldn't repeat their mistakes either.

 

If we were to get Keane, even on loan, I don't see how anyone could argue we haven't shown a reasonable level of ambition in the transfer market.

 

I disagree. The only player we have bought is a below average full back for 1m quid. What money are you talking about here, and how do you think he can get the crowds [and revenue] back to their old levels ?

 

Edit. I have never actually claimed the Halls and Shepherd can match the arabs or Abramovic, only that they were right at their particular time, but the one thing that has to remain constant is an awareness of the size of the football club and hence having the correct ambition for it.

 

 

Did you "forget" that we BOUGHT a midfielder that played in the world cup? Oh that doesn't suit your argument, of course you forgot

[LeazesMag 0]

Yawn.

 

I suppose appointing Chris Hughton is unambitious but appointing Kevin Keegan, who had never managed before, was a statement of intent to the football world ?

 

see thompers, you don't answer me, because you harp on about the last few years but are unable to put the whole Hall/Shepherd era into it's correct context.

 

Mike Ashley will never match the european qualifications and league positions, the changes to the club, the raising of the clubs profile, that they did while he has a hole in his arse.

 

You should let this go, and accept it. Finishing 14th is not good enough for a club like us, it never is, and we need owners who realise this and understand this and attempt to do better, much better.

 

To be fair, if, hypothetically, Hall and Shepherd were to take over now, they'd be unlikely to replicate that sort of success either. However ambitious you are (and that's not to say we shouldn't aspire to great things, of course we should), to do the kind of things we did in the mid-90s would require someone with Man City levels of wealth to chuck money at us. No-one should ever forget or denigrate the success we had under that regime, but we shouldn't repeat their mistakes either.

 

If we were to get Keane, even on loan, I don't see how anyone could argue we haven't shown a reasonable level of ambition in the transfer market.

 

I disagree. The only player we have bought is a below average full back for 1m quid. What money are you talking about here, and how do you think he can get the crowds [and revenue] back to their old levels ?

 

Edit. I have never actually claimed the Halls and Shepherd can match the arabs or Abramovic, only that they were right at their particular time, but the one thing that has to remain constant is an awareness of the size of the football club and hence having the correct ambition for it.

 

 

Did you "forget" that we BOUGHT a midfielder that played in the world cup? Oh that doesn't suit your argument, of course you forgot

 

the proof will be in the final league positions thompers, not just this season, but in the next 2 or 3. I'm willing to bet you that Mike Ashley doesn't match the Halls and Shepherd's league positions. Fancy it ?

[Guest]

Yawn.

 

I suppose appointing Chris Hughton is unambitious but appointing Kevin Keegan, who had never managed before, was a statement of intent to the football world ?

 

see thompers, you don't answer me, because you harp on about the last few years but are unable to put the whole Hall/Shepherd era into it's correct context.

 

Mike Ashley will never match the european qualifications and league positions, the changes to the club, the raising of the clubs profile, that they did while he has a hole in his arse.

 

You should let this go, and accept it. Finishing 14th is not good enough for a club like us, it never is, and we need owners who realise this and understand this and attempt to do better, much better.

 

To be fair, if, hypothetically, Hall and Shepherd were to take over now, they'd be unlikely to replicate that sort of success either. However ambitious you are (and that's not to say we shouldn't aspire to great things, of course we should), to do the kind of things we did in the mid-90s would require someone with Man City levels of wealth to chuck money at us. No-one should ever forget or denigrate the success we had under that regime, but we shouldn't repeat their mistakes either.

 

If we were to get Keane, even on loan, I don't see how anyone could argue we haven't shown a reasonable level of ambition in the transfer market.

 

I disagree. The only player we have bought is a below average full back for 1m quid. What money are you talking about here, and how do you think he can get the crowds [and revenue] back to their old levels ?

 

Edit. I have never actually claimed the Halls and Shepherd can match the arabs or Abramovic, only that they were right at their particular time, but the one thing that has to remain constant is an awareness of the size of the football club and hence having the correct ambition for it.

 

 

Did you "forget" that we BOUGHT a midfielder that played in the world cup? Oh that doesn't suit your argument, of course you forgot

 

the proof will be in the final league positions thompers, not just this season, but in the next 2 or 3. I'm willing to bet you that Mike Ashley doesn't match the Halls and Shepherd's league positions. Fancy it ?

 

 

I'm willing to bet that he at least matches the number of major trophies that the Halls and Shepherd won, fancy that?

[LeazesMag 0]

Yawn.

 

I suppose appointing Chris Hughton is unambitious but appointing Kevin Keegan, who had never managed before, was a statement of intent to the football world ?

 

see thompers, you don't answer me, because you harp on about the last few years but are unable to put the whole Hall/Shepherd era into it's correct context.

 

Mike Ashley will never match the european qualifications and league positions, the changes to the club, the raising of the clubs profile, that they did while he has a hole in his arse.

 

You should let this go, and accept it. Finishing 14th is not good enough for a club like us, it never is, and we need owners who realise this and understand this and attempt to do better, much better.

 

To be fair, if, hypothetically, Hall and Shepherd were to take over now, they'd be unlikely to replicate that sort of success either. However ambitious you are (and that's not to say we shouldn't aspire to great things, of course we should), to do the kind of things we did in the mid-90s would require someone with Man City levels of wealth to chuck money at us. No-one should ever forget or denigrate the success we had under that regime, but we shouldn't repeat their mistakes either.

 

If we were to get Keane, even on loan, I don't see how anyone could argue we haven't shown a reasonable level of ambition in the transfer market.

 

I disagree. The only player we have bought is a below average full back for 1m quid. What money are you talking about here, and how do you think he can get the crowds [and revenue] back to their old levels ?

 

Edit. I have never actually claimed the Halls and Shepherd can match the arabs or Abramovic, only that they were right at their particular time, but the one thing that has to remain constant is an awareness of the size of the football club and hence having the correct ambition for it.

 

 

Did you "forget" that we BOUGHT a midfielder that played in the world cup? Oh that doesn't suit your argument, of course you forgot

 

the proof will be in the final league positions thompers, not just this season, but in the next 2 or 3. I'm willing to bet you that Mike Ashley doesn't match the Halls and Shepherd's league positions. Fancy it ?

 

 

I'm willing to bet that he at least matches the number of major trophies that the Halls and Shepherd won, fancy that?

 

sidestepping ....... I bet you he doesn't match the league positions. What about it ?

[Guest]

Yawn.

 

I suppose appointing Chris Hughton is unambitious but appointing Kevin Keegan, who had never managed before, was a statement of intent to the football world ?

 

see thompers, you don't answer me, because you harp on about the last few years but are unable to put the whole Hall/Shepherd era into it's correct context.

 

Mike Ashley will never match the european qualifications and league positions, the changes to the club, the raising of the clubs profile, that they did while he has a hole in his arse.

 

You should let this go, and accept it. Finishing 14th is not good enough for a club like us, it never is, and we need owners who realise this and understand this and attempt to do better, much better.

 

To be fair, if, hypothetically, Hall and Shepherd were to take over now, they'd be unlikely to replicate that sort of success either. However ambitious you are (and that's not to say we shouldn't aspire to great things, of course we should), to do the kind of things we did in the mid-90s would require someone with Man City levels of wealth to chuck money at us. No-one should ever forget or denigrate the success we had under that regime, but we shouldn't repeat their mistakes either.

 

If we were to get Keane, even on loan, I don't see how anyone could argue we haven't shown a reasonable level of ambition in the transfer market.

 

I disagree. The only player we have bought is a below average full back for 1m quid. What money are you talking about here, and how do you think he can get the crowds [and revenue] back to their old levels ?

 

Edit. I have never actually claimed the Halls and Shepherd can match the arabs or Abramovic, only that they were right at their particular time, but the one thing that has to remain constant is an awareness of the size of the football club and hence having the correct ambition for it.

 

 

Did you "forget" that we BOUGHT a midfielder that played in the world cup? Oh that doesn't suit your argument, of course you forgot

 

the proof will be in the final league positions thompers, not just this season, but in the next 2 or 3. I'm willing to bet you that Mike Ashley doesn't match the Halls and Shepherd's league positions. Fancy it ?

 

 

I'm willing to bet that he at least matches the number of major trophies that the Halls and Shepherd won, fancy that?

 

sidestepping ....... I bet you he doesn't match the league positions. What about it ?

 

 

Maybe he will, maybe he won't. I've never suggested that he will, so why would you offer that bet? Are you suggesting that achieving those league positions now is as on the same level of difficultly as it was then?

Edited August 29, 2010 by AshleysSkidMark

[LeazesMag 0]

Yawn.

 

I suppose appointing Chris Hughton is unambitious but appointing Kevin Keegan, who had never managed before, was a statement of intent to the football world ?

 

see thompers, you don't answer me, because you harp on about the last few years but are unable to put the whole Hall/Shepherd era into it's correct context.

 

Mike Ashley will never match the european qualifications and league positions, the changes to the club, the raising of the clubs profile, that they did while he has a hole in his arse.

 

You should let this go, and accept it. Finishing 14th is not good enough for a club like us, it never is, and we need owners who realise this and understand this and attempt to do better, much better.

 

To be fair, if, hypothetically, Hall and Shepherd were to take over now, they'd be unlikely to replicate that sort of success either. However ambitious you are (and that's not to say we shouldn't aspire to great things, of course we should), to do the kind of things we did in the mid-90s would require someone with Man City levels of wealth to chuck money at us. No-one should ever forget or denigrate the success we had under that regime, but we shouldn't repeat their mistakes either.

 

If we were to get Keane, even on loan, I don't see how anyone could argue we haven't shown a reasonable level of ambition in the transfer market.

 

I disagree. The only player we have bought is a below average full back for 1m quid. What money are you talking about here, and how do you think he can get the crowds [and revenue] back to their old levels ?

 

Edit. I have never actually claimed the Halls and Shepherd can match the arabs or Abramovic, only that they were right at their particular time, but the one thing that has to remain constant is an awareness of the size of the football club and hence having the correct ambition for it.

 

 

Did you "forget" that we BOUGHT a midfielder that played in the world cup? Oh that doesn't suit your argument, of course you forgot

 

the proof will be in the final league positions thompers, not just this season, but in the next 2 or 3. I'm willing to bet you that Mike Ashley doesn't match the Halls and Shepherd's league positions. Fancy it ?

 

 

I'm willing to bet that he at least matches the number of major trophies that the Halls and Shepherd won, fancy that?

 

sidestepping ....... I bet you he doesn't match the league positions. What about it ?

 

 

Maybe he will, maybe he won't. I've never suggested that he will, so why would you offer that bet? Are you suggesting that achieving those league positions now is as on the same level of difficultly as it was then?

 

No. I'm stating quite categorically that he won't match their league positions. As you think the old regime was so shit, what are you afraid of ?

[TicTacWoe 0]

http://www.richmolnar.com/Sounds/Apu%20-%20Shut%20Up.wav

[Gemmill 46086]

You two are a fucking ridiculous pair of idiots, it has to be said. How you don't both get bored of these shit arguments is beyond me.

[LeazesMag 0]

You two are a fucking ridiculous pair of idiots, it has to be said. How you don't both get bored of these shit arguments is beyond me.

 

but I'm right Gemmil. Aren't I

[Guest]

Yawn.

 

I suppose appointing Chris Hughton is unambitious but appointing Kevin Keegan, who had never managed before, was a statement of intent to the football world ?

 

see thompers, you don't answer me, because you harp on about the last few years but are unable to put the whole Hall/Shepherd era into it's correct context.

 

Mike Ashley will never match the european qualifications and league positions, the changes to the club, the raising of the clubs profile, that they did while he has a hole in his arse.

 

You should let this go, and accept it. Finishing 14th is not good enough for a club like us, it never is, and we need owners who realise this and understand this and attempt to do better, much better.

 

To be fair, if, hypothetically, Hall and Shepherd were to take over now, they'd be unlikely to replicate that sort of success either. However ambitious you are (and that's not to say we shouldn't aspire to great things, of course we should), to do the kind of things we did in the mid-90s would require someone with Man City levels of wealth to chuck money at us. No-one should ever forget or denigrate the success we had under that regime, but we shouldn't repeat their mistakes either.

 

If we were to get Keane, even on loan, I don't see how anyone could argue we haven't shown a reasonable level of ambition in the transfer market.

 

I disagree. The only player we have bought is a below average full back for 1m quid. What money are you talking about here, and how do you think he can get the crowds [and revenue] back to their old levels ?

 

Edit. I have never actually claimed the Halls and Shepherd can match the arabs or Abramovic, only that they were right at their particular time, but the one thing that has to remain constant is an awareness of the size of the football club and hence having the correct ambition for it.

 

 

Did you "forget" that we BOUGHT a midfielder that played in the world cup? Oh that doesn't suit your argument, of course you forgot

 

the proof will be in the final league positions thompers, not just this season, but in the next 2 or 3. I'm willing to bet you that Mike Ashley doesn't match the Halls and Shepherd's league positions. Fancy it ?

 

 

I'm willing to bet that he at least matches the number of major trophies that the Halls and Shepherd won, fancy that?

 

sidestepping ....... I bet you he doesn't match the league positions. What about it ?

 

 

Maybe he will, maybe he won't. I've never suggested that he will, so why would you offer that bet? Are you suggesting that achieving those league positions now is as on the same level of difficultly as it was then?

 

No. I'm stating quite categorically that he won't match their league positions. As you think the old regime was so shit, what are you afraid of ?

 

The fact that there wasn't cash rich billionaires bankrolling clubs when Shepherd did that?

[Guest]

You two are a fucking ridiculous pair of idiots, it has to be said. How you don't both get bored of these shit arguments is beyond me.

 

 

You could start a thread now about how Ibrahimovic has gone to Milan and he'd reply in it wittering on about how we'd have once been going for this type of player. I don't just think he's wrong for a number of reasons, he's a fucking tedious old bastard and I don't know why or how others on here can just put up with it or ignore him. He goes into completely unrelated threads and provokes the arguments, then if somebody bites and takes him apart, he can't see that he's being shown up. Even if you try and reason with him or probe into his beliefs and try to understand by asking him genuine questions e.g regarding finances, he doesn't reply with anything other than a massively defensive counter question. I'm actively punching my monitor at some of the dumb shit he dribbles.

 

I'll actively contain myself from biting for the benefit of you folks but i think he should be told to stop the references, however subtle, to the old board in unrelated threads. And enforce it if he doesn't.

[Barney 0]

.com reckon it's not happening.

[SloopJohn 0]

rather have the WOLF(winkel)

[LeazesMag 0]

Yawn.

 

I suppose appointing Chris Hughton is unambitious but appointing Kevin Keegan, who had never managed before, was a statement of intent to the football world ?

 

see thompers, you don't answer me, because you harp on about the last few years but are unable to put the whole Hall/Shepherd era into it's correct context.

 

Mike Ashley will never match the european qualifications and league positions, the changes to the club, the raising of the clubs profile, that they did while he has a hole in his arse.

 

You should let this go, and accept it. Finishing 14th is not good enough for a club like us, it never is, and we need owners who realise this and understand this and attempt to do better, much better.

 

To be fair, if, hypothetically, Hall and Shepherd were to take over now, they'd be unlikely to replicate that sort of success either. However ambitious you are (and that's not to say we shouldn't aspire to great things, of course we should), to do the kind of things we did in the mid-90s would require someone with Man City levels of wealth to chuck money at us. No-one should ever forget or denigrate the success we had under that regime, but we shouldn't repeat their mistakes either.

 

If we were to get Keane, even on loan, I don't see how anyone could argue we haven't shown a reasonable level of ambition in the transfer market.

 

I disagree. The only player we have bought is a below average full back for 1m quid. What money are you talking about here, and how do you think he can get the crowds [and revenue] back to their old levels ?

 

Edit. I have never actually claimed the Halls and Shepherd can match the arabs or Abramovic, only that they were right at their particular time, but the one thing that has to remain constant is an awareness of the size of the football club and hence having the correct ambition for it.

 

 

Did you "forget" that we BOUGHT a midfielder that played in the world cup? Oh that doesn't suit your argument, of course you forgot

 

the proof will be in the final league positions thompers, not just this season, but in the next 2 or 3. I'm willing to bet you that Mike Ashley doesn't match the Halls and Shepherd's league positions. Fancy it ?

 

 

I'm willing to bet that he at least matches the number of major trophies that the Halls and Shepherd won, fancy that?

 

sidestepping ....... I bet you he doesn't match the league positions. What about it ?

 

 

Maybe he will, maybe he won't. I've never suggested that he will, so why would you offer that bet? Are you suggesting that achieving those league positions now is as on the same level of difficultly as it was then?

 

No. I'm stating quite categorically that he won't match their league positions. As you think the old regime was so shit, what are you afraid of ?

 

The fact that there wasn't cash rich billionaires bankrolling clubs when Shepherd did that?

 

Listen thompers. The club was in a far, far worse position in 1991/92 when the Halls and Shepherd took it over than it was when Mike Ashley took it over. Mike Ashley will never match the european qualifications and league positions of the Halls and Shepherd. Are you going to bet me or not ?

 

If not, then shut the fuck up