Guest alex Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 The 'blind backing' of Souness was by Shepherd and the Halls, was it not? That's a rhetorical question btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 7073 Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 The 'blind backing' of Souness was by Shepherd and the Halls, was it not? That's a rhetorical question btw. No, it was Gemmill wot done it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 You think it was a good idea that ffs backed HIS appointment to the tune of £50million? Yet you also think Mike Ashley has set this club back 20 years? back your manager, not sell your best players and /pocket the cash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 (edited) The 'blind backing' of Souness was by Shepherd and the Halls, was it not? That's a rhetorical question btw. they backed him, then sacked him when he blew the money. That's football. Operating a sell and replace policy, ie selling your best players rather than building on them, means you are a selling club. The backing of Ashley reminds me of the backing of Souness, later people will deny they did it. They won't be told, even though it is blatantly obviuos. Edited January 30, 2012 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Back in them days, when Gemmill said 'Jump' and 'pocket the cash', Shepherd said 'how high' and 'how much'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 The 'blind backing' of Souness was by Shepherd and the Halls, was it not? That's a rhetorical question btw. they backed him, then sacked him when he blew the money. That's football. Operating a sell and replace policy, means you are a selling club. The backing of Ashley reminds me of the backing of Souness, later people will deny they did it. And never recovered or looked like doing so any time soon tbf. It was a massive fucking mistake. Strange to write it off like it was a mere trifle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 44495 Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 It's been said a hundred times on here like, but the failure to connect the dots on who WAS actually backing Souness with cash is staggering. This is why it's so ridiculous to try and engage in a discussion with him because something as basic as this is just lost in the porridge of his brain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 7073 Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Back, sack and crack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 It's been said a hundred times on here like, but the failure to connect the dots on who WAS actually backing Souness with cash is staggering. This is why it's so ridiculous to try and engage in a discussion with him because something as basic as this is just lost in the porridge of his brain. It was you, you dopey cunt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Back, sack and crack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Back, sack and crack. Early post of the year contender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 It's been said a hundred times on here like, but the failure to connect the dots on who WAS actually backing Souness with cash is staggering. This is why it's so ridiculous to try and engage in a discussion with him because something as basic as this is just lost in the porridge of his brain. of course, a man owning less than 30% of shares in a multi-million pound football business, was allowed to run the club all on his own by one of the most respected businessmen in the North East. What planet do you live on ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brock Manson 0 Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 You think it was a good idea that ffs backed HIS appointment to the tune of £50million? Yet you also think Mike Ashley has set this club back 20 years? back your manager, not sell your best players and /pocket the cash FFS backed Souness. We were £50million out of pocket, sold Bellamy and were crashing out of Europe. FFS' parting gift was...wait for it...waaaaait for it...Sam Allardyce. Now you can bleat on all you want about how terrible Mike Ashley is and how he sells the club's best players but in reality FFS did EXACTLY that when he was in charge here. We were heading for the Championship and would be bankrupt; another Leeds Utd all because we spunked money away on players who didn't give a shit and sold off the ones who did. The fact is you don't have a clue. You remember the great times of champions league football but forget that FFS would never have got us back to those heights. We're now 6th in the league, replaced departing members of last season's team with better players and moving towards a stable financial footing yet you're trying to point score off Gemmil, who has had you on ignore for years and can't read a word of it! Did FFS fuck us over by appointing Souness £50million to decimate a squad that was capable of achieving regular European football or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monroe Transfer 0 Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Not sure why Leazes keeps on going on about us being a selling club despite there being very rational and fair reasons for certain players having been sold. And I know that Pardew et al have admittted that if a silly money offer comes in for a player, it would be hard to decline (rightly so if it's anything like the Carroll fee). So don't get me wrong, the club may antagonise the fans in the future by selling players but I'm only worrying about the now tbh. If there's a logical reason for a player leaving, then I can understand. If we ever sold a player that we didn't need to sell for less than - or perhaps even equal to - their market value, then I'll not be happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 If a bigger club comes in with a massive offer for one of our players they'll be off. Just like Woodgate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brock Manson 0 Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 If a bigger club comes in with a massive offer for one of our players they'll be off. Just like Woodgate. Ah but we shouldn't sell our best players. Only a shit owner would do that and set us back 20 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10779 Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 If a bigger club comes in with a massive offer for one of our players they'll be off. Just like Woodgate. Ah but we shouldn't sell our best players. Only a shit owner would do that and set us back 20 years. Ah but Woodgate is different. Somehow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Thing is like, I agree with Leazes about a lot of stuff but Gemmill's right about the refusal to join the dots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21847 Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 If a bigger club comes in with a massive offer for one of our players they'll be off. Just like Woodgate. blatant leazes baiting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brock Manson 0 Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 It'd be as likely as Deadman being the first to successfully divide by zero unfortunately. (Nee offence, Deadderz.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 7073 Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 The players do have a say in some of this, but if they don't feel like they have Gemmill's backing, well, it's a done deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 If a bigger club comes in with a massive offer for one of our players they'll be off. Just like Woodgate. blatant leazes baiting No flies on you like. It was a very similar situation to the Carroll one though. Of course the Woodgate money (and more) went on ickle England's Michael Owen and Albert Luque. I'm not sure how that's a good thing mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21847 Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 The 'blind backing' of Souness was by Shepherd and the Halls, was it not? That's a rhetorical question btw. they backed him, then sacked him when he blew the money. That's football. Operating a sell and replace policy, means you are a selling club. The backing of Ashley reminds me of the backing of Souness, later people will deny they did it. And never recovered or looked like doing so any time soon tbf. It was a massive fucking mistake. Strange to write it off like it was a mere trifle. sacking SBR days into a new season then replacing him with souness then giving souness all the money that SBR should have had to spend in the previous summer was the dumbest move of shepherd's chairmanship and we never recovered from it in his tenure. we had a real chance of kicking on and establishing the club as genuine top 6 material in the long term. then he replaces one of our most successful managers in living memory and a much loved national treasure with a manager on the verge of the sack at blackburn that no other big club would have gone near. it had disaster written all over it from the start. strange how LM never discusses it when defending the halls AND shepherd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 The fans got Robson sacked by booing the team for finishing 5th. There's your answer there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21847 Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 It's been said a hundred times on here like, but the failure to connect the dots on who WAS actually backing Souness with cash is staggering. This is why it's so ridiculous to try and engage in a discussion with him because something as basic as this is just lost in the porridge of his brain. good to see others have him on ignore too. hopefully if we all join forces he will eventually piss off and annoy a different board. no sign of it working so far though - he still dominates most threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now