Craig 6700 Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 from .COM: So let's just get this right - for less than a quarter of the £10m we paid for Albert Luque, an England midfielder from Charlton and the bloke who waltzed round the mackem defence twice on Saturday were up for grabs. The final day of transfer window deals saw Danny Murphy became the 83rd midfielder to be signed by Spurs coach Martin Jol, whilst DJ Campbell fell into the clutches of evil Birmingham City boss Steve Bruce. Murphy's fee will eventually rise to £2m while Campbell's will be half that, so that's around about £1.5m outlayed initially. Meanwhile, we were unable to punt out the currently unwell Lee Bowyer and unwilling to part with a penny in fees or wages. The Mirror newspaper claims that Bowyer's move to Charlton broke down over his wage demands - so much for being desperate to move back to the smoke.... Up front our resources consist of the number nine (1 goal in 7 league games) Chopra (0 goals in 14 league games) the aforementioned Spaniard (0 goals in 9 league games) hipshaker Shola (1 goal in 17 league games) and hopalong Owen. All of which places a big burden on the returning Parker, Dyer and Emre - on which our season appears now to rest. Any further injuries just don't bear thinking about. PS - Let's just not mention the defence. Newcastle United - the longest running farce in the west end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bombadil 0 Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Are they seriously suggesting we should have bought DJ Campbell because he scored twice against the Mackems? They're obsessed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Are they seriously suggesting we should have bought DJ Campbell because he scored twice against the Mackems? They're obsessed. 86965[/snapback] I think they are, and whats more Craig in his desperation to blame Shepherd for anything he sees fitc - including the fact it didn't snow at Xmas - is forgetting the fact that he has spent 26m quid on Owen and Luque - which is actually courtesy of Souness' incompetence, the manager he backed to give time to be successful, not Shepherds. Surely if Luque is half what some people are cracking him up to be we wouldn't need to be considering such players anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetleftpeg 0 Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 I think we should have bought in a striker during the window, but what Birmingham have done smells of desperation. Still, the bastid is bound to score against us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckypierre 0 Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 but why oh why are we incapable of getting any players in on loan? It was the same last Jan when we were desperate for some players, we paid over the odds for a couple but didnt get any on loan. Other teams can get a couple of useful players why cant we? Is it because theres no players represented by Willie McKay looking to go out on loan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Are they seriously suggesting we should have bought DJ Campbell because he scored twice against the Mackems? They're obsessed. 86965[/snapback] I think they are, and whats more Craig in his desperation to blame Shepherd for anything he sees fitc - including the fact it didn't snow at Xmas - is forgetting the fact that he has spent 26m quid on Owen and Luque - which is actually courtesy of Souness' incompetence, the manager he backed to give time to be successful, not Shepherds. Surely if Luque is half what some people are cracking him up to be we wouldn't need to be considering such players anyway 86971[/snapback] So backing incompetence is a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 (edited) Are they seriously suggesting we should have bought DJ Campbell because he scored twice against the Mackems? They're obsessed. 86965[/snapback] I think they are, and whats more Craig in his desperation to blame Shepherd for anything he sees fitc - including the fact it didn't snow at Xmas - is forgetting the fact that he has spent 26m quid on Owen and Luque - which is actually courtesy of Souness' incompetence, the manager he backed to give time to be successful, not Shepherds. Surely if Luque is half what some people are cracking him up to be we wouldn't need to be considering such players anyway 86971[/snapback] So backing incompetence is a good thing. 86976[/snapback] as discussed Alex, one bad appointment doesn't make a bad chairman. Backing the Champions League is a good thing BTW isn't it ? It's one thing recognising a fuckwit, quite another using hindsight. If Shepherd appoints a manager who gets us into europe again, that will make him a good chairman again ... Speaking about hindsight, who on here said "back him or sack him", well again, he did what you asked him to do ! Edited February 1, 2006 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3973 Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Are they seriously suggesting we should have bought DJ Campbell because he scored twice against the Mackems? They're obsessed. 86965[/snapback] I think they are, and whats more Craig in his desperation to blame Shepherd for anything he sees fitc - including the fact it didn't snow at Xmas - is forgetting the fact that he has spent 26m quid on Owen and Luque - which is actually courtesy of Souness' incompetence, the manager he backed to give time to be successful, not Shepherds. Surely if Luque is half what some people are cracking him up to be we wouldn't need to be considering such players anyway 86971[/snapback] So backing incompetence is a good thing. 86976[/snapback] Didn't you back him or am I thinking of someone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6700 Posted February 1, 2006 Author Share Posted February 1, 2006 Are they seriously suggesting we should have bought DJ Campbell because he scored twice against the Mackems? They're obsessed. 86965[/snapback] I think they are, and whats more Craig in his desperation to blame Shepherd for anything he sees fitc - including the fact it didn't snow at Xmas - is forgetting the fact that he has spent 26m quid on Owen and Luque - which is actually courtesy of Souness' incompetence, the manager he backed to give time to be successful, not Shepherds. Surely if Luque is half what some people are cracking him up to be we wouldn't need to be considering such players anyway 86971[/snapback] You think I'm forgetting the fact that we signed them? Fact of the matter is LM, Freddy could have stopped those transfers if he'd wanted.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 (edited) As you've decreed you mean Leazes? Personally I can think of three shite appointements by Shepherd. The fact most fans welcomed them means fuck all tbh. Edit: following your logic, I would imagine most fans were happy with the signing of Viana, so does that mean he was a good acquisition? Edited February 1, 2006 by alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Are they seriously suggesting we should have bought DJ Campbell because he scored twice against the Mackems? They're obsessed. 86965[/snapback] I think they are, and whats more Craig in his desperation to blame Shepherd for anything he sees fitc - including the fact it didn't snow at Xmas - is forgetting the fact that he has spent 26m quid on Owen and Luque - which is actually courtesy of Souness' incompetence, the manager he backed to give time to be successful, not Shepherds. Surely if Luque is half what some people are cracking him up to be we wouldn't need to be considering such players anyway 86971[/snapback] You think I'm forgetting the fact that we signed them? Fact of the matter is LM, Freddy could have stopped those transfers if he'd wanted.... 86982[/snapback] No Craig, a GOOD chairman lets his manager MANAGE....and like a lot of you said, "back him or sack him", well he backed him, he did what you asked. I said sack the twat though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 22001 Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Speaking about hindsight, who on here said "back him or sack him", well again, he did what you asked him to do ! 86978[/snapback] Shepherd is doing neither right now though, is he? I hope we don't end up getting relegated for the sake of a few million quid or hurting Freddy's pride. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 As you've decreed you mean Leazes? Personally I can think of three shite appointements by Shepherd. The fact most fans welcomed them means fuck all tbh. 86983[/snapback] It doesn't mean fuck all. If he appoints who fans are happy with, he's doing his job as chairman....you just don't get it do you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Speaking about hindsight, who on here said "back him or sack him", well again, he did what you asked him to do ! 86978[/snapback] Shepherd is doing neither right now though, is he? I hope we don't end up getting relegated for the sake of a few million quid or hurting Freddy's pride. 86986[/snapback] I know he's not mate, personally if we had a few million I would sack Souness rather than let him buy another player, its scary that its obvious we haven't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bombadil 0 Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 As discussed Alex, one bad appointment doesn't make a bad chairman. Backing the Champions League is a good thing BTW isn't it ? It still saddens me to think that if Robson had been given £50m in July 2003, we'd possibly still be a Top 4 team now. We were just a defensive midfielder and one or two defenders away from being a top team. What we needed at the time was 3-4 new faces. That's where Shepherd keeps going wrong - he backs the wrong managers at the wrong time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6700 Posted February 1, 2006 Author Share Posted February 1, 2006 Are they seriously suggesting we should have bought DJ Campbell because he scored twice against the Mackems? They're obsessed. 86965[/snapback] I think they are, and whats more Craig in his desperation to blame Shepherd for anything he sees fitc - including the fact it didn't snow at Xmas - is forgetting the fact that he has spent 26m quid on Owen and Luque - which is actually courtesy of Souness' incompetence, the manager he backed to give time to be successful, not Shepherds. Surely if Luque is half what some people are cracking him up to be we wouldn't need to be considering such players anyway 86971[/snapback] You think I'm forgetting the fact that we signed them? Fact of the matter is LM, Freddy could have stopped those transfers if he'd wanted.... 86982[/snapback] No Craig, a GOOD chairman lets his manager MANAGE....and like a lot of you said, "back him or sack him", well he backed him, he did what you asked. I said sack the twat though. 86984[/snapback] When did Shepherd come out and back him? He came out and said that the current performance was not acceptable and that we couldn't blame it all on the injuries, but I don't actually recall him publically stating that the manager has his full backing... Expect a "if he doesn't sack him, he must be backing him" response which is ridiculous tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 As you've decreed you mean Leazes? Personally I can think of three shite appointements by Shepherd. The fact most fans welcomed them means fuck all tbh. 86983[/snapback] It doesn't mean fuck all. If he appoints who fans are happy with, he's doing his job as chairman....you just don't get it do you. 86987[/snapback] So, to repeat, following your logic, I would imagine most fans were happy with the signing of Viana, so does that mean he was a good acquisition? I can think of loads of others if you like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6700 Posted February 1, 2006 Author Share Posted February 1, 2006 Nicky Butt is a prime example - people were chuffed to bits when we signed him! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 If a manager signs a player the fans and the fans are happy at the time, but turns out to be a failure, that's the manager's fault, but if the chairman appoints a manager the fans are happy with at the time, but he turns out to be a failure, it's not the chairman's fault. Apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 22001 Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 As discussed Alex, one bad appointment doesn't make a bad chairman. Backing the Champions League is a good thing BTW isn't it ? It still saddens me to think that if Robson had been given £50m in July 2003, we'd possibly still be a Top 4 team now. We were just a defensive midfielder and one or two defenders away from being a top team. What we needed at the time was 3-4 new faces. That's where Shepherd keeps going wrong - he backs the wrong managers at the wrong time. 86990[/snapback] I agree with that, especially the bit about timing. Whatever you think about him, the timing of the dismissal of Dalglish was absurd, and I would also add he clearly didn't do his homework on his replacement. Gullit had to go when he did, but it was just good fortune that Robson was availble. And the timing and nature of Robson's sacking was nothing short of disgraceful. And now he is keeping on a manager who is clearly damaging the club - why? Because he gave a third rate manager a ridiculously lucrative contract with no option to sack him when he didn't produce. And now we can't afford to sack him because Shepherd has blown all the money on supporting him buying third rate players. Hardly good chairmanship, is it? I've said it before and I'll say it again. This club needs a professional acting chief executive to make the football decisions - Shepherd has proven time and time again he is incompetent in this respect. The blame ultimately lies at the top, it always does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Actually, what Renton said, the other day. That was GREAT tbh (and not in the N-O sense) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6700 Posted February 1, 2006 Author Share Posted February 1, 2006 If a manager signs a player the fans and the fans are happy at the time, but turns out to be a failure, that's the manager's fault, but if the chairman appoints a manager the fans are happy with at the time, but he turns out to be a failure, it's not the chairman's fault. Apparently. 86994[/snapback] Fucking cushy job Fred has there, isn't it?? Gets paid a whopping great dividend for his troubles as well.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6700 Posted February 1, 2006 Author Share Posted February 1, 2006 As discussed Alex, one bad appointment doesn't make a bad chairman. Backing the Champions League is a good thing BTW isn't it ? It still saddens me to think that if Robson had been given £50m in July 2003, we'd possibly still be a Top 4 team now. We were just a defensive midfielder and one or two defenders away from being a top team. What we needed at the time was 3-4 new faces. That's where Shepherd keeps going wrong - he backs the wrong managers at the wrong time. 86990[/snapback] I agree with that, especially the bit about timing. Whatever you think about him, the timing of the dismissal of Dalglish was absurd, and I would also add he clearly didn't do his homework on his replacement. Gullit had to go when he did, but it was just good fortune that Robson was availble. And the timing and nature of Robson's sacking was nothing short of disgraceful. And now he is keeping on a manager who is clearly damaging the club - why? Because he gave a third rate manager a ridiculously lucrative contract with no option to sack him when he didn't produce. And now we can't afford to sack him because Shepherd has blown all the money on supporting him buying third rate players. Hardly good chairmanship, is it? I've said it before and I'll say it again. This club needs a professional acting chief executive to make the football decisions - Shepherd has proven time and time again he is incompetent in this respect. The blame ultimately lies at the top, it always does. 86995[/snapback] Totally agree with that... The big 4 clubs (Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool & Chelsea) all operate with a chairman and a chief executive running the footballing side of things with great effect. We used to have a chief executive in the Keegan days in the form of Freddie Fletcher. We were more successful back then as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Regarding what Leazes said about Shepherd doing his job "If he appoints who fans are happy with" He's more arsed about his short-term popularity with the fans than he is with putting into place any sort of long-term plan for the good of the football club. A good example is the timing of the dismissal of Robson. I see this as a definite weakness rather than a strength. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 22001 Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Regarding what Leazes said about Shepherd doing his job "If he appoints who fans are happy with" He's more arsed about his short-term popularity with the fans than he is with putting into place any sort of long-term plan for the good of the football club. A good example is the timing of the dismissal of Robson. I see this as a definite weakness rather than a strength. 87002[/snapback] Agreed, but I wish he'd do the popular thing right now! 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