Freddy Shepherd

[Gemmill 46030]

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?

 

Apparently he takes decisions to DEADLOCK.

[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.

 

 

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?

 

Most of my friends run their own companies. We can discuss the role of the independant non-alligned chairman role in the modern PLc if you like?

 

 

 

*Not saying that was what FFS was btw.

Edited December 8, 2010 by Park Life

[manc-mag 1]

good edit.

 

Jesus wept.

[Park Life 71]

good edit.

 

Jesus wept.

 

 

I'm saying he has a point LM, you tried to patronise me like I normally let you, but in this instance I can see you know nothing about Company law vis a vie the stock market and legal imlications thereof. So move away bro.

[manc-mag 1]

good edit.

 

Jesus wept.

 

 

I'm saying he has a point LM, you tried to patronise me like I normally let you, but in this instance I can see you know nothing about Company law vis a vie the stock market and legal imlications thereof. So move away bro.

 

 

 

Where the fuck did that come from like? Sounds more like feelings of inadequacy than me patronising you. Sorry if you feel that way though, genuinely.

 

I won't respond to your point about the stock market for fear of patronising you further.

[Guest alex]

[Park Life 71]

good edit.

 

Jesus wept.

 

 

I'm saying he has a point LM, you tried to patronise me like I normally let you, but in this instance I can see you know nothing about Company law vis a vie the stock market and legal imlications thereof. So move away bro.

 

 

 

Where the fuck did that come from like? Sounds more like feelings of inadequacy than me patronising you. Sorry if you feel that way though, genuinely.

 

I won't respond to your point about the stock market for fear of patronising you further.

 

YOU do come across as a know it all in these types of threads isn't it?

 

So, are we to discuss the ratings system (analysts say for arguments sake S&P) used by the stock market vis a vie the appointment of independant chairman (especially if there is an odd number of directors) or not?

 

Didn't think so.

Edited December 8, 2010 by Park Life

[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.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Fred: Hey John, I've just sacked the manager

Sir John: You mean Bobby ?

Fred: yes

SJH: Ok Fred, I'm sure you know best lad, you don't need to tell me things like this you know, just make sure my 80million quid is OK aye ?

Fred: Don't worry John you can trust me

SJH: who do you have in mind then Fred ?

Fred: I rather fancied that Souness chap, you know.

SJH; Ok Fred, appoint who you like mate, when its done, I'll be over there looking after the roses. Oh and don't bother mentioning this to Douglas either, he's doing far more important things too, racing his cars etc

Fred: Ok mate will let you know

 

So fuckin funny. As stupid a scenario as those who whined on for years how embarrassed they were playing in the San Siro and the Nou Camp insisting that "anybody" would do better

 

You think Sir John is an idiot ? Thats fine by me lad, if its your opinion. I'll stand back and laugh my tits off at you.

 

[Park Life 71]

[manc-mag 1]

good edit.

 

Jesus wept.

 

 

I'm saying he has a point LM, you tried to patronise me like I normally let you, but in this instance I can see you know nothing about Company law vis a vie the stock market and legal imlications thereof. So move away bro.

 

 

 

Where the fuck did that come from like? Sounds more like feelings of inadequacy than me patronising you. Sorry if you feel that way though, genuinely.

 

I won't respond to your point about the stock market for fear of patronising you further.

 

YOU do come across as a know it all in these types of threads isn't it?

 

So, are we to discuss the ratings system (analysts say for arguments sake S&P) used by the stock market vis a vie the appointment of independant chairman (especially if there is an odd number of directors) or not?

 

Didn't think so.

 

I'm a bit more animated in my language in this thread but that's because I'm exasperated by how clueless Leazes is to everything and what he feels he's proving by the argument he's trying to hang his hat on, because essentially it's meaningless. I apologise in as much as any of that spilt over into posts towards you. Basically I should know better than to even bother responding to Leazes at all.

 

As to your point about stock market/ratings systems/analysts etc, without wanting to sound patronising, I'd discuss that if it was at all relevant. But it simply isn't to the very basic point I'm making.

[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.

 

Fred: Hey John, I've just sacked the manager

Sir John: You mean Bobby ?

Fred: yes

SJH: Ok Fred, I'm sure you know best lad, you don't need to tell me things like this you know, just make sure my 80million quid is OK aye ?

Fred: Don't worry John you can trust me

SJH: who do you have in mind then Fred ?

Fred: I rather fancied that Souness chap, you know.

SJH; Ok Fred, appoint who you like mate, when its done, I'll be over there looking after the roses. Oh and don't bother mentioning this to Douglas either, he's doing far more important things too, racing his cars etc

Fred: Ok mate will let you know

 

So fuckin funny. As stupid a scenario as those who whined on for years how embarrassed they were playing in the San Siro and the Nou Camp insisting that "anybody" would do better

 

You think Sir John is an idiot ? Thats fine by me lad, if its your opinion. I'll stand back and laugh my tits off at you.

 

 

My post (no.49) explains the position without the hilarious sketch show. ta.

[Park Life 71]

good edit.

 

Jesus wept.

 

 

I'm saying he has a point LM, you tried to patronise me like I normally let you, but in this instance I can see you know nothing about Company law vis a vie the stock market and legal imlications thereof. So move away bro.

 

 

 

Where the fuck did that come from like? Sounds more like feelings of inadequacy than me patronising you. Sorry if you feel that way though, genuinely.

 

I won't respond to your point about the stock market for fear of patronising you further.

 

YOU do come across as a know it all in these types of threads isn't it?

 

So, are we to discuss the ratings system (analysts say for arguments sake S&P) used by the stock market vis a vie the appointment of independant chairman (especially if there is an odd number of directors) or not?

 

Didn't think so.

 

I'm a bit more animated in my language in this thread but that's because I'm exasperated by how clueless Leazes is to everything and what he feels he's proving by the argument he's trying to hang his hat on, because essentially it's meaningless. I apologise in as much as any of that spilt over into posts towards you. Basically I should know better than to even bother responding to Leazes at all.

 

As to your point about stock market/ratings systems/analysts etc, without wanting to sound patronising, I'd discuss that if it was at all relevant. But it simply isn't to the very basic point I'm making.

 

Well and truly Fopped.

[Phil 6]

good edit.

 

Jesus wept.

 

 

I'm saying he has a point LM, you tried to patronise me like I normally let you, but in this instance I can see you know nothing about Company law vis a vie the stock market and legal imlications thereof. So move away bro.

 

 

 

Where the fuck did that come from like? Sounds more like feelings of inadequacy than me patronising you. Sorry if you feel that way though, genuinely.

 

I won't respond to your point about the stock market for fear of patronising you further.

 

YOU do come across as a know it all in these types of threads isn't it?

 

So, are we to discuss the ratings system (analysts say for arguments sake S&P) used by the stock market vis a vie the appointment of independant chairman (especially if there is an odd number of directors) or not?

 

Didn't think so.

 

 

So are you saying you agree with LM, that Fatty One gets off scot free with all the f**k ups because he didn't own the company entirely, or are you saying he is 30% to blame.

 

 

I blame him 100%, because he was hands on. And must have either brought issues to the board or not defended his actions.

[Park Life 71]

good edit.

 

Jesus wept.

 

 

I'm saying he has a point LM, you tried to patronise me like I normally let you, but in this instance I can see you know nothing about Company law vis a vie the stock market and legal imlications thereof. So move away bro.

 

 

 

Where the fuck did that come from like? Sounds more like feelings of inadequacy than me patronising you. Sorry if you feel that way though, genuinely.

 

I won't respond to your point about the stock market for fear of patronising you further.

 

YOU do come across as a know it all in these types of threads isn't it?

 

So, are we to discuss the ratings system (analysts say for arguments sake S&P) used by the stock market vis a vie the appointment of independant chairman (especially if there is an odd number of directors) or not?

 

Didn't think so.

 

 

So are you saying you agree with LM, that Fatty One gets off scot free with all the f**k ups because he didn't own the company entirely, or are you saying he is 30% to blame.

 

 

I blame him 100%, because he was hands on. And must have either brought issues to the board or not defended his actions.

 

I'm saying shit happens.

[Holden McGroin 6783]

Jacqui Oatley

 

Freddie Shepherd moralising on Mike Ashley on 5 Live. Rich from him. He had his secretary hand Souness/Saunders letter of dismissal

[peasepud 59]

Jacqui Oatley

 

Freddie Shepherd moralising on Mike Ashley on 5 Live. Rich from him. He had his secretary hand Souness/Saunders letter of dismissal

 

Difference being those cunts deserved to go.

[Meenzer 15716]

And he had nowt to do with the decision anyway. Apparently.

[Gemmill 46030]

good edit.

 

Jesus wept.

 

 

I'm saying he has a point LM, you tried to patronise me like I normally let you, but in this instance I can see you know nothing about Company law vis a vie the stock market and legal imlications thereof. So move away bro.

 

 

 

Where the fuck did that come from like? Sounds more like feelings of inadequacy than me patronising you. Sorry if you feel that way though, genuinely.

 

I won't respond to your point about the stock market for fear of patronising you further.

 

YOU do come across as a know it all in these types of threads isn't it?

 

So, are we to discuss the ratings system (analysts say for arguments sake S&P) used by the stock market vis a vie the appointment of independant chairman (especially if there is an odd number of directors) or not?

 

Didn't think so.

 

I'm a bit more animated in my language in this thread but that's because I'm exasperated by how clueless Leazes is to everything and what he feels he's proving by the argument he's trying to hang his hat on, because essentially it's meaningless. I apologise in as much as any of that spilt over into posts towards you. Basically I should know better than to even bother responding to Leazes at all.

 

As to your point about stock market/ratings systems/analysts etc, without wanting to sound patronising, I'd discuss that if it was at all relevant. But it simply isn't to the very basic point I'm making.

 

Well and truly Fopped.

 

Bit of a twat's reaction to someone giving you an apology that you don't deserve. Particularly seeing as he could have chosen to forge ahead making you look like a fucking idiot.

[Guest You FCB Get Out Of Our Club]

Geordie aggro geordie aggro hello hello!!

[Guest alex]

Is there a worse commentator on television than that Oatley bint?

[Holden McGroin 6783]

I doubt it. She does have a few interesting tidbits on twitter though.

[Guest alex]

I doubt it. She does have a few interesting tidbits on twitter though.

She's alright as a summariser tbf. Awful when actually commentating though. I blame these liberal, lefty, pc, do-gooders at the beeb for giving her a job.

[LeazesMag 0]

good edit.

 

Jesus wept.

 

 

I'm saying he has a point LM, you tried to patronise me like I normally let you, but in this instance I can see you know nothing about Company law vis a vie the stock market and legal imlications thereof. So move away bro.

 

 

 

Where the fuck did that come from like? Sounds more like feelings of inadequacy than me patronising you. Sorry if you feel that way though, genuinely.

 

I won't respond to your point about the stock market for fear of patronising you further.

 

YOU do come across as a know it all in these types of threads isn't it?

 

So, are we to discuss the ratings system (analysts say for arguments sake S&P) used by the stock market vis a vie the appointment of independant chairman (especially if there is an odd number of directors) or not?

 

Didn't think so.

 

I'm a bit more animated in my language in this thread but that's because I'm exasperated by how clueless Leazes is to everything and what he feels he's proving by the argument he's trying to hang his hat on, because essentially it's meaningless. I apologise in as much as any of that spilt over into posts towards you. Basically I should know better than to even bother responding to Leazes at all.

 

As to your point about stock market/ratings systems/analysts etc, without wanting to sound patronising, I'd discuss that if it was at all relevant. But it simply isn't to the very basic point I'm making.

 

Well and truly Fopped.

 

Bit of a twat's reaction to someone giving you an apology that you don't deserve. Particularly seeing as he could have chosen to forge ahead making you look like a fucking idiot.

 

there are a few idiots on here Gem, but Parky - and myself - are not among them. Shame you still don't get it.

 

Ho hum.....

[Gemmill 46030]

good edit.

 

Jesus wept.

 

 

I'm saying he has a point LM, you tried to patronise me like I normally let you, but in this instance I can see you know nothing about Company law vis a vie the stock market and legal imlications thereof. So move away bro.

 

 

 

Where the fuck did that come from like? Sounds more like feelings of inadequacy than me patronising you. Sorry if you feel that way though, genuinely.

 

I won't respond to your point about the stock market for fear of patronising you further.

 

YOU do come across as a know it all in these types of threads isn't it?

 

So, are we to discuss the ratings system (analysts say for arguments sake S&P) used by the stock market vis a vie the appointment of independant chairman (especially if there is an odd number of directors) or not?

 

Didn't think so.

 

I'm a bit more animated in my language in this thread but that's because I'm exasperated by how clueless Leazes is to everything and what he feels he's proving by the argument he's trying to hang his hat on, because essentially it's meaningless. I apologise in as much as any of that spilt over into posts towards you. Basically I should know better than to even bother responding to Leazes at all.

 

As to your point about stock market/ratings systems/analysts etc, without wanting to sound patronising, I'd discuss that if it was at all relevant. But it simply isn't to the very basic point I'm making.

 

Well and truly Fopped.

 

Bit of a twat's reaction to someone giving you an apology that you don't deserve. Particularly seeing as he could have chosen to forge ahead making you look like a fucking idiot.

 

there are a few idiots on here Gem, but Parky - and myself - are not among them. Shame you still don't get it.

 

Ho hum.....

 

I didn't call Parky an idiot. And you're beyond idiotic.

[The Fish 10964]

Cracks me up when anybody comes close to agreeing with Leazes, they're spot on and clever and shiny and pretty... anybody else is a guttersnipe and the basest of creatures.

 

This old fool doesn't quit does he?