Freddy Shepherd

[Kitman 2204]

Planning isn't a dirty word, it's a prerequisite for any business, especially a large and complex one. If you don't plan, you usually get left behind by those that do. Making it up as you go along, especially in a multi million business, is a recipe for disaster. If the plan's not working, you change it.

 

I don't doubt Ashley has a plan. It's just probably a shit one, especially for NUFC and the fans.

Edited December 8, 2010 by Kitman

[Guest]

This man gave a job to Souness.

 

He's not as bad as Ashley et al, but that doesn't say a lot.

 

 

Dear God.

 

See my last post.

 

 

Surely, by allowing Freddy to be chairman, it suggests that the MAJORITY SHAREHOLDERS OMG were happy to take a back seat and let Freddy run the show. Or was it just a fancy worthless title? If so, why didn't SJH remain chairman?

[LeazesMag 0]

I jest, but that is literally how Leazes' mind works and how bad his grasp of logic is.

 

I know he's pissed tonight but this and latterly the Chris Hughton thread are an utter embarrasment of posting.

 

the embarrassment are those who insisted that anybody but Fred would do better than qualifying for europe regularly, filling an expanded stadium every home game, signing the players who were responsible for the higher playing standards to enable all of this etc etc etc

 

And still don't see that they were wrong, very wrong.

 

For the record, and I don't know how many times I have to say this, it is embarrassing how many times I have to tell you. From 1992 until 2007 the Halls and Shepherd ran the club, combined they had the majority shareholding, all the decisions good and bad were taken by the majority shareholders, none of them could do anything without the approval of the other ? Sir John Hall has said that "we" appointed managers. Dogless has said that "we" decided Bobby Robson had to go.

 

I thought you were a solicitor ? Aren't you supposed to be intelligent ?

 

Dear fuck. I hoped this particular angle of comment would be well over and accepted by people by now.

Edited December 8, 2010 by LeazesMag

[LeazesMag 0]

Planning isn't a dirty word, it's a prerequisite for any business, especially a large and complex one. If you don't plan, you usually get left behind by those that do. Making it up as you go along, especially in a multi million business, is a recipe for disaster. If the plan's not working, you change it.

 

I don't doubt Ashley has a plan. It's just probably a shit one, especially for NUFC and the fans.

 

you can't "plan" to put a manager in and automatically gain success ie trophies through this business plan. It just doesn't work like that in football.

[LeazesMag 0]

This man gave a job to Souness.

 

He's not as bad as Ashley et al, but that doesn't say a lot.

 

 

Dear God.

 

See my last post.

 

 

Surely, by allowing Freddy to be chairman, it suggests that the MAJORITY SHAREHOLDERS OMG were happy to take a back seat and let Freddy run the show. Or was it just a fancy worthless title? If so, why didn't SJH remain chairman?

 

the dumbest post you've ever made, and that's saying something.

 

[LeazesMag 0]

I'm not sure I'd want Freddy back. I don't think he's as nasty as Ashley. More like a buffoon to Ashley's bastard.

 

He made bad kneejerk decisions. Souness was appointed because he thought Bobby had gone soft on player discipline, so his reaction was to appoint someone with a 'toughguy' reputation. But of course Souness was too much of a tough guy. Any slight trait, such as Laurent Robert having a bit of a sulk at times was taken as a personal slight against him. It wasn't, it was just how Robert was.

 

Freddy simply didn't think. He'd act and then think right, what do I do now? And that would lead to a desperate and badly thoughtout solution.

 

Then of course there was the whole financial side, which I wouldn't be happy with, spending money we didn't have.

 

interesting to hear Sir John Hall talking on TV about the appointments "we" made who spout off on television these days.

 

Wonder who he is talking about ?

 

How many hundreds of times does this need to be said.

 

SHEPHERD WAS NEVER THE MAJORITY SHAREHOLDER AND COULD NOT HAVE MADE ANY APPOINTMENTS WITHOUT AGREEMENT AND CONSULATION WITH THE MAJORITY SHAREHOLDERS. This has been confirmed by Dogless who issued a press statement at the time saying that "we" thought Bobby Robson has lost the plot etc etc [word to that effect].

 

People will never make good judgements while they let personal feelings, or listen to total crap spouted in CIU clubs etc no nowts to influence their judgements.

 

Dear fuckin Christ. ...... no wonder people laugh at us.

 

Aye, anyone who listens to blokes in pubs wants their heads examined.

 

Depends who the bloke in the pub is though doesn't it ?

[Kitman 2204]

Planning isn't a dirty word, it's a prerequisite for any business, especially a large and complex one. If you don't plan, you usually get left behind by those that do. Making it up as you go along, especially in a multi million business, is a recipe for disaster. If the plan's not working, you change it.

 

I don't doubt Ashley has a plan. It's just probably a shit one, especially for NUFC and the fans.

 

you can't "plan" to put a manager in and automatically gain success ie trophies through this business plan. It just doesn't work like that in football.

 

Totally agree. And I've said before that the manager is the most important appointment in the whole club, central to success or otherwise on the pitch, and it isn't easy to find a good one. That doesn't mean that planning isn't necessary though, on all sorts of levels.

 

From the outside, many football clubs including ours have been quite badly run, with directors who usually know nowt about football/finance/running large companies. Managerial appointments are a case in point - the usual tactic is to sack first and then cast around to see who fancies the job. I remember Sir Bobby going on 5 Live to appeal to be given the job when Gullit resigned for instance.

[LeazesMag 0]

Planning isn't a dirty word, it's a prerequisite for any business, especially a large and complex one. If you don't plan, you usually get left behind by those that do. Making it up as you go along, especially in a multi million business, is a recipe for disaster. If the plan's not working, you change it.

 

I don't doubt Ashley has a plan. It's just probably a shit one, especially for NUFC and the fans.

 

you can't "plan" to put a manager in and automatically gain success ie trophies through this business plan. It just doesn't work like that in football.

 

Totally agree. And I've said before that the manager is the most important appointment in the whole club, central to success or otherwise on the pitch, and it isn't easy to find a good one. That doesn't mean that planning isn't necessary though, on all sorts of levels.

 

From the outside, many football clubs including ours have been quite badly run, with directors who usually know nowt about football/finance/running large companies. Managerial appointments are a case in point - the usual tactic is to sack first and then cast around to see who fancies the job. I remember Sir Bobby going on 5 Live to appeal to be given the job when Gullit resigned for instance.

 

I agree, but because the results of the first team are central to everything, it also means that your plan can go pear shaped in a matter of months, or even weeks. Then you start again, so what becomes of the plan ? You then look around for a manager you would like or have identified as "the manager" and find he is unavailable, so how do you plan anything ?

 

It's purely reactive, and almost totally based on the current results of the first team. Long term contracts are a definite no-go too. in 99% of cases, they just mean you have to fork out compensation.

[Kitman 2204]

Planning isn't a dirty word, it's a prerequisite for any business, especially a large and complex one. If you don't plan, you usually get left behind by those that do. Making it up as you go along, especially in a multi million business, is a recipe for disaster. If the plan's not working, you change it.

 

I don't doubt Ashley has a plan. It's just probably a shit one, especially for NUFC and the fans.

 

you can't "plan" to put a manager in and automatically gain success ie trophies through this business plan. It just doesn't work like that in football.

 

Totally agree. And I've said before that the manager is the most important appointment in the whole club, central to success or otherwise on the pitch, and it isn't easy to find a good one. That doesn't mean that planning isn't necessary though, on all sorts of levels.

 

From the outside, many football clubs including ours have been quite badly run, with directors who usually know nowt about football/finance/running large companies. Managerial appointments are a case in point - the usual tactic is to sack first and then cast around to see who fancies the job. I remember Sir Bobby going on 5 Live to appeal to be given the job when Gullit resigned for instance.

 

I agree, but because the results of the first team are central to everything, it also means that your plan can go pear shaped in a matter of months, or even weeks. Then you start again, so what becomes of the plan ? You then look around for a manager you would like or have identified as "the manager" and find he is unavailable, so how do you plan anything ?

 

It's purely reactive, and almost totally based on the current results of the first team. Long term contracts are a definite no-go too. in 99% of cases, they just mean you have to fork out compensation.

 

I see you're talking purely on a football results level and that's true. But there's more to it than that imo; and most well run clubs would I expect have an overall strategy on all sorts of levels with the first team at the heart of it. imo there's more to it than appointing the manager and seeing how it goes. The difference between us and Arsenal is like the difference between Souness and Mourinho in terms of how well run the club is. I don't think it's luck they got Wenger, but I think there's much more to the way the club has been run than getting lucky with the manager anyway.

[LeazesMag 0]

Planning isn't a dirty word, it's a prerequisite for any business, especially a large and complex one. If you don't plan, you usually get left behind by those that do. Making it up as you go along, especially in a multi million business, is a recipe for disaster. If the plan's not working, you change it.

 

I don't doubt Ashley has a plan. It's just probably a shit one, especially for NUFC and the fans.

 

you can't "plan" to put a manager in and automatically gain success ie trophies through this business plan. It just doesn't work like that in football.

 

Totally agree. And I've said before that the manager is the most important appointment in the whole club, central to success or otherwise on the pitch, and it isn't easy to find a good one. That doesn't mean that planning isn't necessary though, on all sorts of levels.

 

From the outside, many football clubs including ours have been quite badly run, with directors who usually know nowt about football/finance/running large companies. Managerial appointments are a case in point - the usual tactic is to sack first and then cast around to see who fancies the job. I remember Sir Bobby going on 5 Live to appeal to be given the job when Gullit resigned for instance.

 

I agree, but because the results of the first team are central to everything, it also means that your plan can go pear shaped in a matter of months, or even weeks. Then you start again, so what becomes of the plan ? You then look around for a manager you would like or have identified as "the manager" and find he is unavailable, so how do you plan anything ?

 

It's purely reactive, and almost totally based on the current results of the first team. Long term contracts are a definite no-go too. in 99% of cases, they just mean you have to fork out compensation.

 

I see you're talking purely on a football results level and that's true. But there's more to it than that imo; and most well run clubs would I expect have an overall strategy on all sorts of levels with the first team at the heart of it. imo there's more to it than appointing the manager and seeing how it goes. The difference between us and Arsenal is like the difference between Souness and Mourinho in terms of how well run the club is. I don't think it's luck they got Wenger, but I think there's much more to the way the club has been run than getting lucky with the manager anyway.

 

no, it wasn't lucky they got Wenger, but before him they had Rioch and sacked him because he didn't come up to their demands. It was the same recruiting process that got them both Rioch and Wenger though. It wasn't luck that we got Bobby Robson, but it was unlucky that he was 20 years older than would have been ideal. Same thing as Wenger ?

 

I do agree with you, but everything starts with the first team. Those results are what bring in crowds, sell shirts, get you on TV, attract other players, attract sponsors, everything.

 

And losing games does the exact opposite.

 

The only real time you can "plan" a manager is when you have a successful one who is about to retire and you know he is about to retire/call it a day, and even then, you can easily fuck up big style.

[Phil 6]

Fatty One says he'd have sacked Hughton?

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/...d.html?ITO=1490

Edited December 8, 2010 by Phil

[Ayatollah Hermione 13762]

There you go, they're both spackers.

[wykikitoon 19807]

Was on TalkShite this morning saying that.

 

Fat cunt.

[Isegrim 9680]

Of course appointing Pardew instead of Hughton would be a joke, but I am unsure how it stands in comparison to sacking Bobby Robson and appointing Graeme Souness instead tbh

[TheMoog 0]

Of course appointing Pardew instead of Hughton would be a joke, but I am unsure how it stands in comparison to sacking Bobby Robson and appointing Graeme Souness instead tbh

 

True, an equally poor choice imo. That said I don't think the club was in as precarious a position as it is now though, a false move now could very well get us relegated once again.

[manc-mag 1]

I jest, but that is literally how Leazes' mind works and how bad his grasp of logic is.

 

I know he's pissed tonight but this and latterly the Chris Hughton thread are an utter embarrasment of posting.

 

the embarrassment are those who insisted that anybody but Fred would do better than qualifying for europe regularly, filling an expanded stadium every home game, signing the players who were responsible for the higher playing standards to enable all of this etc etc etc

 

And still don't see that they were wrong, very wrong.

 

For the record, and I don't know how many times I have to say this, it is embarrassing how many times I have to tell you. From 1992 until 2007 the Halls and Shepherd ran the club, combined they had the majority shareholding, all the decisions good and bad were taken by the majority shareholders, none of them could do anything without the approval of the other ? Sir John Hall has said that "we" appointed managers. Dogless has said that "we" decided Bobby Robson had to go.

 

I thought you were a solicitor ? Aren't you supposed to be intelligent ?

 

Dear fuck. I hoped this particular angle of comment would be well over and accepted by people by now.

 

ASM's post immediately above this one (post no.27) correctly explains the position. Unfortunately for you, you're talking complete shit.

 

The whole point is that in appointing Shepherd as chairman, that's one of the fundamental roles he assumes responsibility for. That's what chairmen do. If it wasn't the case, why bother having a Chairman? Why would SJH bother standing down as Chairman? The shareholders give this function to the Chairman who then takes those decisions on their behalf. If he makes the wrong decisions they can chose to terminate his service contract.

 

If the Chairman decides to listen to shareholders/follow the views of shareholders/not take issue with bad recommendations of shareholders (howsoever you want to phrase it) then it's still his fucking fault when those decisions blow up in his face. He's employed to run a football club.

 

I see you chose not to answer the question I posed at the top of the page because that asks the question technically and you clearly didn't understand what I was talking about. Yes I'm a solicitor and I'm fairly confident I've got a better grasp of company law than you have.

[LeazesMag 0]

I jest, but that is literally how Leazes' mind works and how bad his grasp of logic is.

 

I know he's pissed tonight but this and latterly the Chris Hughton thread are an utter embarrasment of posting.

 

the embarrassment are those who insisted that anybody but Fred would do better than qualifying for europe regularly, filling an expanded stadium every home game, signing the players who were responsible for the higher playing standards to enable all of this etc etc etc

 

And still don't see that they were wrong, very wrong.

 

For the record, and I don't know how many times I have to say this, it is embarrassing how many times I have to tell you. From 1992 until 2007 the Halls and Shepherd ran the club, combined they had the majority shareholding, all the decisions good and bad were taken by the majority shareholders, none of them could do anything without the approval of the other ? Sir John Hall has said that "we" appointed managers. Dogless has said that "we" decided Bobby Robson had to go.

 

I thought you were a solicitor ? Aren't you supposed to be intelligent ?

 

Dear fuck. I hoped this particular angle of comment would be well over and accepted by people by now.

 

ASM's post immediately above this one (post no.27) correctly explains the position. Unfortunately for you, you're talking complete shit.

 

The whole point is that in appointing Shepherd as chairman, that's one of the fundamental roles he assumes responsibility for. That's what chairmen do. If it wasn't the case, why bother having a Chairman? Why would SJH bother standing down as Chairman? The shareholders give this function to the Chairman who then takes those decisions on their behalf. If he makes the wrong decisions they can chose to terminate his service contract.

 

If the Chairman decides to listen to shareholders/follow the views of shareholders/not take issue with bad recommendations of shareholders (howsoever you want to phrase it) then it's still his fucking fault when those decisions blow up in his face. He's employed to run a football club.

 

I see you chose not to answer the question I posed at the top of the page because that asks the question technically and you clearly didn't understand what I was talking about. Yes I'm a solicitor and I'm fairly confident I've got a better grasp of company law than you have.

 

 

I refer you to the comments as made by Sir John Hall and Dogless, where they have referred on many occasions as "we".

 

Only an idiot would give one single person, and a minority shareholder at that, totall control of a business worth in excess of 100 million quid. Do you think Sir John Hall is an idiot ?

 

Continue beating Shepherd with any stick you can find. I hope your judgement of situations as a solicitor is better than your reading of an obvious situation at the football club.

 

I understand perfectly well what your point is. You are back to spouting total bollocks, based on personal agenda. I hope you are looking forward to someone matching the achievements of the Halls and Shepherd, which may or may not be a long time. Who knows, it certainly won't be during the ownership of Mike Ashley, thats certain.

[manc-mag 1]

I jest, but that is literally how Leazes' mind works and how bad his grasp of logic is.

 

I know he's pissed tonight but this and latterly the Chris Hughton thread are an utter embarrasment of posting.

 

the embarrassment are those who insisted that anybody but Fred would do better than qualifying for europe regularly, filling an expanded stadium every home game, signing the players who were responsible for the higher playing standards to enable all of this etc etc etc

 

And still don't see that they were wrong, very wrong.

 

For the record, and I don't know how many times I have to say this, it is embarrassing how many times I have to tell you. From 1992 until 2007 the Halls and Shepherd ran the club, combined they had the majority shareholding, all the decisions good and bad were taken by the majority shareholders, none of them could do anything without the approval of the other ? Sir John Hall has said that "we" appointed managers. Dogless has said that "we" decided Bobby Robson had to go.

 

I thought you were a solicitor ? Aren't you supposed to be intelligent ?

 

Dear fuck. I hoped this particular angle of comment would be well over and accepted by people by now.

 

ASM's post immediately above this one (post no.27) correctly explains the position. Unfortunately for you, you're talking complete shit.

 

The whole point is that in appointing Shepherd as chairman, that's one of the fundamental roles he assumes responsibility for. That's what chairmen do. If it wasn't the case, why bother having a Chairman? Why would SJH bother standing down as Chairman? The shareholders give this function to the Chairman who then takes those decisions on their behalf. If he makes the wrong decisions they can chose to terminate his service contract.

 

If the Chairman decides to listen to shareholders/follow the views of shareholders/not take issue with bad recommendations of shareholders (howsoever you want to phrase it) then it's still his fucking fault when those decisions blow up in his face. He's employed to run a football club.

 

I see you chose not to answer the question I posed at the top of the page because that asks the question technically and you clearly didn't understand what I was talking about. Yes I'm a solicitor and I'm fairly confident I've got a better grasp of company law than you have.

 

 

I refer you to the comments as made by Sir John Hall and Dogless, where they have referred on many occasions as "we".

 

Only an idiot would give one single person, and a minority shareholder at that, totall control of a business worth in excess of 100 million quid. Do you think Sir John Hall is an idiot ?

 

Continue beating Shepherd with any stick you can find. I hope your judgement of situations as a solicitor is better than your reading of an obvious situation at the football club.

 

I understand perfectly well what your point is. You are back to spouting total bollocks, based on personal agenda. I hope you are looking forward to someone matching the achievements of the Halls and Shepherd, which may or may not be a long time. Who knows, it certainly won't be during the ownership of Mike Ashley, thats certain.

 

 

 

 

THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS HE HAD TOTAL CONTROL IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN.

 

I can't make you understand this because you don't understand the basic rudiments of company law.

[manc-mag 1]

It barely even matters anyway. Aside from the technical points which you fail to understand, even if we were de facto being governed by committee, it only means there were more of them making bad decisions than just one. Jesus wept.

[Park Life 71]

I jest, but that is literally how Leazes' mind works and how bad his grasp of logic is.

 

I know he's pissed tonight but this and latterly the Chris Hughton thread are an utter embarrasment of posting.

 

the embarrassment are those who insisted that anybody but Fred would do better than qualifying for europe regularly, filling an expanded stadium every home game, signing the players who were responsible for the higher playing standards to enable all of this etc etc etc

 

And still don't see that they were wrong, very wrong.

 

For the record, and I don't know how many times I have to say this, it is embarrassing how many times I have to tell you. From 1992 until 2007 the Halls and Shepherd ran the club, combined they had the majority shareholding, all the decisions good and bad were taken by the majority shareholders, none of them could do anything without the approval of the other ? Sir John Hall has said that "we" appointed managers. Dogless has said that "we" decided Bobby Robson had to go.

 

I thought you were a solicitor ? Aren't you supposed to be intelligent ?

 

Dear fuck. I hoped this particular angle of comment would be well over and accepted by people by now.

 

He's right the big descisions would have have been taken by the board as a whole.

[Park Life 71]

I jest, but that is literally how Leazes' mind works and how bad his grasp of logic is.

 

I know he's pissed tonight but this and latterly the Chris Hughton thread are an utter embarrasment of posting.

 

the embarrassment are those who insisted that anybody but Fred would do better than qualifying for europe regularly, filling an expanded stadium every home game, signing the players who were responsible for the higher playing standards to enable all of this etc etc etc

 

And still don't see that they were wrong, very wrong.

 

For the record, and I don't know how many times I have to say this, it is embarrassing how many times I have to tell you. From 1992 until 2007 the Halls and Shepherd ran the club, combined they had the majority shareholding, all the decisions good and bad were taken by the majority shareholders, none of them could do anything without the approval of the other ? Sir John Hall has said that "we" appointed managers. Dogless has said that "we" decided Bobby Robson had to go.

 

I thought you were a solicitor ? Aren't you supposed to be intelligent ?

 

Dear fuck. I hoped this particular angle of comment would be well over and accepted by people by now.

 

ASM's post immediately above this one (post no.27) correctly explains the position. Unfortunately for you, you're talking complete shit.

 

The whole point is that in appointing Shepherd as chairman, that's one of the fundamental roles he assumes responsibility for. That's what chairmen do. If it wasn't the case, why bother having a Chairman? Why would SJH bother standing down as Chairman? The shareholders give this function to the Chairman who then takes those decisions on their behalf. If he makes the wrong decisions they can chose to terminate his service contract.

 

If the Chairman decides to listen to shareholders/follow the views of shareholders/not take issue with bad recommendations of shareholders (howsoever you want to phrase it) then it's still his fucking fault when those decisions blow up in his face. He's employed to run a football club.

 

I see you chose not to answer the question I posed at the top of the page because that asks the question technically and you clearly didn't understand what I was talking about. Yes I'm a solicitor and I'm fairly confident I've got a better grasp of company law than you have.

 

 

I refer you to the comments as made by Sir John Hall and Dogless, where they have referred on many occasions as "we".

 

Only an idiot would give one single person, and a minority shareholder at that, totall control of a business worth in excess of 100 million quid. Do you think Sir John Hall is an idiot ?

 

Continue beating Shepherd with any stick you can find. I hope your judgement of situations as a solicitor is better than your reading of an obvious situation at the football club.

 

I understand perfectly well what your point is. You are back to spouting total bollocks, based on personal agenda. I hope you are looking forward to someone matching the achievements of the Halls and Shepherd, which may or may not be a long time. Who knows, it certainly won't be during the ownership of Mike Ashley, thats certain.

 

 

 

 

THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS HE HAD TOTAL CONTROL IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN.

 

I can't make you understand this because you don't understand the basic rudiments of company law.

 

In most companies the chairman doesn't even have a vote, unless the vote is tied.

[Gemmill 44113]

Leazes, do youunderstand that the CEO of any PLC you care to name is NOT the majority shareholder. He is however on the hook for company performance because that's his job.

[Kitman 2204]

We need more shouting in this thread, Parky

[manc-mag 1]

I jest, but that is literally how Leazes' mind works and how bad his grasp of logic is.

 

I know he's pissed tonight but this and latterly the Chris Hughton thread are an utter embarrasment of posting.

 

the embarrassment are those who insisted that anybody but Fred would do better than qualifying for europe regularly, filling an expanded stadium every home game, signing the players who were responsible for the higher playing standards to enable all of this etc etc etc

 

And still don't see that they were wrong, very wrong.

 

For the record, and I don't know how many times I have to say this, it is embarrassing how many times I have to tell you. From 1992 until 2007 the Halls and Shepherd ran the club, combined they had the majority shareholding, all the decisions good and bad were taken by the majority shareholders, none of them could do anything without the approval of the other ? Sir John Hall has said that "we" appointed managers. Dogless has said that "we" decided Bobby Robson had to go.

 

I thought you were a solicitor ? Aren't you supposed to be intelligent ?

 

Dear fuck. I hoped this particular angle of comment would be well over and accepted by people by now.

 

He's right the big descisions would have have been taken by the board as a whole.

 

 

The board. Not the fucking shareholders. Jesus. I realise they're both the same in some cases, but Leazes is premising this on a majority vote system where it's decided entirely by shareholder voting. The point is, if Freddie as chairman disagreed with the views of other board members then he could have fucking well had the strength to say so. As Chairman. He could even have resigned. As Chairman. It would have been entirely separate to his shareholding.

 

I know fine well what will have gone on behind the scenes de facto but it doesnt in the slightest absolve him of his appointments as chairman. It's an absolute nothing point that Leazes thinks somehow changes everything.

 

What Shepherd is not is some sort of shrinking violet. If he took decisions as chairman then it's because he thought they were the right decisions. If they weren't, he wouldnt. Has he ever come out and said he was forced into an appointment against his better judgment? The point Leazes is trying to make, literally doesnt matter a monkey's fucking toss for any number of reasons.

[manc-mag 1]

I jest, but that is literally how Leazes' mind works and how bad his grasp of logic is.

 

I know he's pissed tonight but this and latterly the Chris Hughton thread are an utter embarrasment of posting.

 

the embarrassment are those who insisted that anybody but Fred would do better than qualifying for europe regularly, filling an expanded stadium every home game, signing the players who were responsible for the higher playing standards to enable all of this etc etc etc

 

And still don't see that they were wrong, very wrong.

 

For the record, and I don't know how many times I have to say this, it is embarrassing how many times I have to tell you. From 1992 until 2007 the Halls and Shepherd ran the club, combined they had the majority shareholding, all the decisions good and bad were taken by the majority shareholders, none of them could do anything without the approval of the other ? Sir John Hall has said that "we" appointed managers. Dogless has said that "we" decided Bobby Robson had to go.

 

I thought you were a solicitor ? Aren't you supposed to be intelligent ?

 

Dear fuck. I hoped this particular angle of comment would be well over and accepted by people by now.

 

ASM's post immediately above this one (post no.27) correctly explains the position. Unfortunately for you, you're talking complete shit.

 

The whole point is that in appointing Shepherd as chairman, that's one of the fundamental roles he assumes responsibility for. That's what chairmen do. If it wasn't the case, why bother having a Chairman? Why would SJH bother standing down as Chairman? The shareholders give this function to the Chairman who then takes those decisions on their behalf. If he makes the wrong decisions they can chose to terminate his service contract.

 

If the Chairman decides to listen to shareholders/follow the views of shareholders/not take issue with bad recommendations of shareholders (howsoever you want to phrase it) then it's still his fucking fault when those decisions blow up in his face. He's employed to run a football club.

 

I see you chose not to answer the question I posed at the top of the page because that asks the question technically and you clearly didn't understand what I was talking about. Yes I'm a solicitor and I'm fairly confident I've got a better grasp of company law than you have.

 

 

I refer you to the comments as made by Sir John Hall and Dogless, where they have referred on many occasions as "we".

 

Only an idiot would give one single person, and a minority shareholder at that, totall control of a business worth in excess of 100 million quid. Do you think Sir John Hall is an idiot ?

 

Continue beating Shepherd with any stick you can find. I hope your judgement of situations as a solicitor is better than your reading of an obvious situation at the football club.

 

I understand perfectly well what your point is. You are back to spouting total bollocks, based on personal agenda. I hope you are looking forward to someone matching the achievements of the Halls and Shepherd, which may or may not be a long time. Who knows, it certainly won't be during the ownership of Mike Ashley, thats certain.

 

 

 

 

THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS HE HAD TOTAL CONTROL IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN.

 

I can't make you understand this because you don't understand the basic rudiments of company law.

 

In most companies the chairman doesn't even have a vote, unless the vote is tied.

 

 

I think it'd have been better if you'd just avoided this thread Parky. Dear me.

 

What do you suppose the Chairman does do dare I even ask?