Howaythelads 0 Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 OK so HTL has changed his mind then! Just so this doesn't degenerate into a 10 page volley between the two of us, I'm referring to a while back when I outlined why I felt Shepherd had contributed to our downfall (timing of sackings, continuing to support Souness long after he should have done, etc) and you replied saying that you were in agreement with me! If you remember, I said that you were replying to my argument with someone else! For the record, I have no gripe with the amount of times / money Fred has provided over the length of his chairmanship. I do feel he had to those considering he was following SJH into the chair and anything less than what he has provided will have been seen as a total failure on his part... 93060[/snapback] I haven't changed my mind, Craig. I know Fred has made mistakes, I've mentioned them more than a few times. But the fact remains that he is not to blame for the subsequent poor footballing decisions made by any manager of the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 I haven't changed my mind, Craig. I know Fred has made mistakes, I've mentioned them more than a few times. But the fact remains that he is not to blame for the subsequent poor footballing decisions made by any manager of the club. 93062[/snapback] Sorry HTL, but that's just not true. As a boss, anyone who I hire is my responsibility. Their incompetence is my incompetence. Fred knows where the buck stops, why make excuses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6700 Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Agree with DotBum... Shepherd is responsible for all those beneath him, particularly those directly beneath him. Souness was repsonsible for the poor footballing decisions, but likewise Shepherd was responsible for the fact that it was Souness who continued to make them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads 0 Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 I haven't changed my mind, Craig. I know Fred has made mistakes, I've mentioned them more than a few times. But the fact remains that he is not to blame for the subsequent poor footballing decisions made by any manager of the club. 93062[/snapback] Sorry HTL, but that's just not true. As a boss, anyone who I hire is my responsibility. Their incompetence is my incompetence. Fred knows where the buck stops, why make excuses? 93064[/snapback] There are not many directors or chairmen who are football savvy, so they employ a manager specifically to run the football side of the club, the business side is run by the Board. Failure to make correct decisions of a footballing nature is the respnsiblity of the manager. Football club managers stand or fall by the decisions they take, that is the way of it in football. Always has been and it always will be. Other than Abramovich supplying the cash, nobody thinks the success of Chelsea on the pitch is anything to do with anybody other than Mourinho. He sets out the team, so he gets the plaudits when they win, he'll get the bullet should they fail. Just to be clear on something, dotbum. Are you suggesting that whenever a manager in any company screws up, the Chairman of the Board should resign? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 There are not many directors or chairmen who are football savvy, so they employ a manager specifically to run the football side of the club, the business side is run by the Board. Failure to make correct decisions of a footballing nature is the respnsiblity of the manager. Football club managers stand or fall by the decisions they take, that is the way of it in football. Always has been and it always will be. Other than Abramovich supplying the cash, nobody thinks the success of Chelsea on the pitch is anything to do with anybody other than Mourinho. He sets out the team, so he gets the plaudits when they win, he'll get the bullet should they fail. Just to be clear on something, dotbum. Are you suggesting that whenever a manager in any company screws up, the Chairman of the Board should resign? 93080[/snapback] My name is not Brian Clough. For the record, if I was above Freddie I would tell him that he had been a good employee but had made a bad mistake and was on his last warning, and to stop stealing from the staff kitchen. On the highlighted point above, I can't agree, industries are always evolving, football's a particularly good example of that. If he can't be held responsible for footballing decisions then he can't hire a footballing person, he has to hire someone with the credentials to do that, I think that may well be the norm in 10 years time. Football is one of the most laughably incompetent industries I've ever witnessed, I'm not convinced that's a good argument for backing Shepherd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6700 Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Just to be clear on something, dotbum. Are you suggesting that whenever a manager in any company screws up, the Chairman of the Board should resign?93080[/snapback] Didn't Greg Dyke resign because of a fuck up that he had absolutely nothing to do with? *playing devil's advocate* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 O'Neill I think is a sheep in wolfs clothing. If O'Neill gets the job, I reckon he'll be no great shakes, however as it seems a lot of people want him, will they say Shepherd still appoints "shit managers" if he fails ala Dalglish and Gullit. I stand by the opinion that Shepherd does the best by his managers, and gives them all the utmost chance to succeed, and personally out of the candidates we are all mentioning, I would go for Hitzfeld, Allardyce or bring Keegan back. For the simple reason that I don't think any of the others [ie O'Neill, Scolari, Eriksson] capable of matching what Keegan did the first time, whereas the 3 I mention are the most likely. 92972[/snapback] I see you're still plugging along with that line! Think you'll find no-one actually said that, they've said we could have a better chairman than FS but that does not automatically translate into "he appoints shit managers"... It IS....you can't knock him for handing out money to managers, and haven't, you've knocked him for appointing "failures"....so why don't you lay out the criterial you think he should look for ? [none of this hindsight malarkey] 93005[/snapback] Nope, he's been knocked for making failures, not appointing them! We've been here loads of times and 99% of people don't support your view that Shepherd is innocent in all of this - even HTL agrees he's fucked up big time... 93034[/snapback] how can he make failures.....mind boggling considering all the managers that have left have said themselves they have no complaints over his support for them ... I don't really care what 99% think, the proof is there, he has appointed trophy winning managers and backed them totally with more than enough money and freedom to repeat the success, the only thing it proves is how difficult football is and how few succeed. If this is not the criteria you think he should apply when appointing a manager, please explain how else he can do it, instead of your good self just applying later hindsight ? It may also prove that chucking money at things isn't necessarily the way to success, which some of you should bear in mind the next time you think the club has a bottomless pit of money and tell him to "splash more of [his?] cash" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6700 Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 sorry, I should have said he 'engineers' failures.... Jesus wept! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads 0 Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 There are not many directors or chairmen who are football savvy, so they employ a manager specifically to run the football side of the club, the business side is run by the Board. Failure to make correct decisions of a footballing nature is the respnsiblity of the manager. Football club managers stand or fall by the decisions they take, that is the way of it in football. Always has been and it always will be. Other than Abramovich supplying the cash, nobody thinks the success of Chelsea on the pitch is anything to do with anybody other than Mourinho. He sets out the team, so he gets the plaudits when they win, he'll get the bullet should they fail. Just to be clear on something, dotbum. Are you suggesting that whenever a manager in any company screws up, the Chairman of the Board should resign? 93080[/snapback] My name is not Brian Clough. For the record, if I was above Freddie I would tell him that he had been a good employee but had made a bad mistake and was on his last warning, and to stop stealing from the staff kitchen. On the highlighted point above, I can't agree, industries are always evolving, football's a particularly good example of that. If he can't be held responsible for footballing decisions then he can't hire a footballing person, he has to hire someone with the credentials to do that, I think that may well be the norm in 10 years time. Football is one of the most laughably incompetent industries I've ever witnessed, I'm not convinced that's a good argument for backing Shepherd. 93082[/snapback] And he generally does that. Appointing Dalglish would be like appointing Wenger now, what else has he to go on other than track record? Gullit was also a manager with credentials as was Robson. The only one that always looked like a mistake was Souness, although some thought this a great appointment because he'd won the League Cup and so also had credentials of a sort. I think your criteria is obviously different to mine. I've supported the club during periods when everybody wondered where the money was going, because players were only signed when we looked like we might be in a relegatin battle. We sold our best players and often just survived. The Board was happy with a place in the top flight, they had no more ambition than that. A bit like Sunderland right now, and for years gone by. It's very frustrating for supporters, far more frustrating than the present time. All I want from the Board and Fred is that they appoint a man and back him until it's obvious he's the wrong man. At that point they should sack him and try again. There are no guarantees that any particular manager is going to be a success. As others have pointed out, it's the same Arsenal board that appinted Rioch, but then later appointed Wenger. It's the same Liverpool board that appointed Souness, but later got it better if not totally right. They even sacked Hoolia after winning 5 cups because their ambiton is so high. This was a correct decision imo and is how I supported my opinion that Fred should have sacked Robson after we finished 3rd. I thought then he could take us no further, so it was a mistake by Fred imo not to move him on then. I never said FS makes no mistakes. I'm just wondering what criteria people are judging him against when they say he's shite, because he's far from shite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 sorry, I should have said he 'engineers' failures.... Jesus wept! 93103[/snapback] nice little sidestep. suggesting he deliberately wants a manager to fail is laughable though.. While you think about an answer, explain the difference in terms too .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6700 Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 sorry, I should have said he 'engineers' failures.... Jesus wept! 93103[/snapback] nice little sidestep. suggesting he deliberately wants a manager to fail is laughable though.. While you think about an answer, explain the difference in terms too .... 93114[/snapback] For one, I've not side-stepped. Secondly, I've never suggested that he deliberately wants a manager to fail... When I said 'engineer', I mean he has performed the actions which have resulted in what we have - I've never said that his goal was to achieve what we have become. But then I don't think Ridsdale wanted to fail at Leeds.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 sorry, I should have said he 'engineers' failures.... Jesus wept! 93103[/snapback] nice little sidestep. suggesting he deliberately wants a manager to fail is laughable though.. While you think about an answer, explain the difference in terms too .... 93114[/snapback] For one, I've not side-stepped. Secondly, I've never suggested that he deliberately wants a manager to fail... When I said 'engineer', I mean he has performed the actions which have resulted in what we have 93119[/snapback] So what team did he pick and where did he play ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 And he generally does that. Appointing Dalglish would be like appointing Wenger now, what else has he to go on other than track record? Gullit was also a manager with credentials as was Robson. The only one that always looked like a mistake was Souness, although some thought this a great appointment because he'd won the League Cup and so also had credentials of a sort. I think your criteria is obviously different to mine. I've supported the club during periods when everybody wondered where the money was going, because players were only signed when we looked like we might be in a relegatin battle. We sold our best players and often just survived. The Board was happy with a place in the top flight, they had no more ambition than that. A bit like Sunderland right now, and for years gone by. It's very frustrating for supporters, far more frustrating than the present time. All I want from the Board and Fred is that they appoint a man and back him until it's obvious he's the wrong man. At that point they should sack him and try again. There are no guarantees that any particular manager is going to be a success. As others have pointed out, it's the same Arsenal board that appinted Rioch, but then later appointed Wenger. It's the same Liverpool board that appointed Souness, but later got it better if not totally right. They even sacked Hoolia after winning 5 cups because their ambiton is so high. This was a correct decision imo and is how I supported my opinion that Fred should have sacked Robson after we finished 3rd. I thought then he could take us no further, so it was a mistake by Fred imo not to move him on then. I never said FS makes no mistakes. I'm just wondering what criteria people are judging him against when they say he's shite, because he's far from shite. 93104[/snapback] Hang on, you've misinterpreted me there. You said Freddie couldn't be held responsible for hiring the wrong manager as he's not a football man. I meant, he has to hire someone who can hire the right manager, and then be responsible for both of their mistakes. Is a CEO of a low-tech company not responible for their web strategy being a joke because they hired the wrong firm? Yes, my criteria are different to hiring and backing a manager with a track record, I expect them to be smart and innovative. But I do like Freddie as a chairman, I do think if he messes up this appointment then some serious questions have to be asked. For my money Douglas Hall is the useless scumbag causing most of the problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordieshandy 0 Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 I would suggest stating Robson will leave at the end of the season at the start of the season (undermining his position) and then punting him after the transfer window had closed were mistakes. Punting managers at the wrong time is as bad as appointing the wrong one, since one almost inevitably leads to the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0 Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 He only wants the academy job though, he's made that abundantly clear.... I'm speculating, but given the problems he's had with his health, he probably finds that running the academy is a far more relaxing prospect than permanently working with the first team... Just because he isn't working as a coach, doesn't mean he hasn't been offered the role - not everyone wants the top job you know! 92999[/snapback] Personally, I think he'd want the managers role. 93000[/snapback] He doesn't. Speaking this week he explained that he was about to do his Pro-licence (and had paid £7000 towards it) when he was taken ill. Now he has no intention of doing it, so he can stay coaching youngsters at the club and can't be seen as a 'threat' to the incumbent manager. His theory is that they can't think he is after their job if he hasn't got the uefa qualification required. Therefore they will leave him in peace to do a job he likes, coaching kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa Lazaru 0 Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 The great thing with Roeder is, that even if he doesn't want it and would refuse it he can definitely do the job for this season (last 2-3 games excepeted!) Which means should Fat Fred not be able to get his first choices he doesn't need to rush somebody shite into the post and can wait till the close season to try again for a top class manager. Personally i suspect we'll have a manager in place within the next 2-3 weeks, but Roeder is showing we don't have to if we can't get one of the best out there just yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4411 Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 So Roeder will become a "Tony Parks" type character who comes in and does the caretaker bit every couple of years when yet another failure leaves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo 175 Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 So Roeder will become a "Tony Parks" type character who comes in and does the caretaker bit every couple of years when yet another failure leaves 93194[/snapback] Good to see we can all be optomistic ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walliver 0 Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 I've heard that Roeder without badges can only be manager for 12 (?) weeks. How often can he do this ? Is there a fixed period of time that has to pass before he can be manager again or how does it work ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo 175 Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 I've heard that Roeder without badges can only be manager for 12 (?) weeks. How often can he do this ? Is there a fixed period of time that has to pass before he can be manager again or how does it work ? 93210[/snapback] He can only do this once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walliver 0 Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 I've heard that Roeder without badges can only be manager for 12 (?) weeks. How often can he do this ? Is there a fixed period of time that has to pass before he can be manager again or how does it work ? 93210[/snapback] He can only do this once. 93220[/snapback] So he can't do what NJS wants him to do then ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4411 Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 I've heard that Roeder without badges can only be manager for 12 (?) weeks. How often can he do this ? Is there a fixed period of time that has to pass before he can be manager again or how does it work ? 93210[/snapback] He can only do this once. 93220[/snapback] So he can't do what NJS wants him to do then ? 93232[/snapback] I'd assumed he'd get his badge but its been suggested it was a deliberate decision not to go for it after his illness - my comment was only semi-serious but then again I think having someone committed to the club like that isn't a bad idea. 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