pacbuddies Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Reading this story from 2006 not much has changed in terms of us being in turmoil and fans being disgruntled. I would have hoped that after 6 years things would have moved on and got better but has it really? Please read the posting guidelines about linking to other sites Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulieB Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Are you kidding? I'm old enough to remember the Ellis era. Demolition of the Trinity Steps and stand & turning it into a B & Q. shows what a complete despot Ellis was IMO. No brainer Lerner all the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 With regards to Ellis being a despot, when can we rename the stand again? I hate the fact that we have a stand named after him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted February 18, 2012 Author Share Posted February 18, 2012 No brainer Lerner all the way. That's a really unkind nick name Julie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Ellis only came up with funds when the natives got restless and never consistently made funds available for sensible timings of team building.He only supported his managers ad hoc. Lerner made funds and control available to his manager, so i can't see much more he can do. on an overwhelming basis my vote goes to Lerner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morpheus Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Must be Ellis for me. Better football and more success. He also would never have appointed AM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 18, 2012 Moderator Share Posted February 18, 2012 Must be Ellis for me. Better football I'm really not sure that a chairman/owner can take much credit for the "better/worse" football style. But even more so I don't agree that we had consistently better football under Ellis anyway. That seems like hugely selective recollection. I don't recall Graham Turner, Billy McNeill, Dr Jo, Graham Taylor, John Gregory, Most of DO'L's time being better than the football played by MO'N or GH. It was, to my mind much like the mix of MO'N, GH and AMcL we have had under Randy. True, for a season or two under BFR and a time under Brian Little the football was better than anything seen under Randy. But that's maybe 3 or 4 seasons out of 20 odd years. I suppose beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and you're entitled to your view, of course. I think when a team is playing well and winning the players are more confident and express themselves more freely. If any manager has good players, the football will most likely be good to watch. And finally, I think many people actually want to see exciting football and exciting games, in which their team triumphs - these are the games that stick in the mind. Of course we're neither triumphing, nor seeing exciting games, and we're certainly seeing numbing football most of the time at the moment, that's for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted February 18, 2012 Author Share Posted February 18, 2012 I'm really not sure that a chairman/owner can take much credit for the "better/worse" football style. Well they don't train the players of course, but appointing a manager with a reputation for playing flair football like Atkinson, or picking a manager who plays anti-football and gets his teams relegated like McLeish is a fairly strong indicator of what you're going to get. So actually, I'd argue that their managerial appointments, which alongside stumping up for players is just about the most important choice that they a chairman has to make, has a huge bearing on the quality of football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Must be Ellis for me. Better football and more success. He also would never have appointed AM. Is this a joke ? People have short **** memories And selective ones ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRS-T Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Lerner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avfc1982 Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Ellis only came up with funds when the natives got restless and never consistently made funds available for sensible timings of team building.He only supported his managers ad hoc. Lerner made funds and control available to his manager, so i can't see much more he can do. on an overwhelming basis my vote goes to Lerner. But I don't remember Ellis ever selling our best players and not reinvesting the money though. Unlike Lerner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KHV Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Since i have been going under Ellis we achieved a promotion 2 league runners up spots 2 league cup wins and fa cup final an fa cup semi final and we were top 6 under Gregory, Little and DOL. Lerner has yet to top this and the was he is going now we never will. we are heading the same way as his Cleveland Browns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avfc1982 Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Must be Ellis for me. Better football and more success. He also would never have appointed AM. Is this a joke ? People have short **** memories And selective ones ! We did play better football while Ellis was in charge, we did have more success and we didn't employ McLeish under Ellis as well. Morpheus is hardly lying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted February 18, 2012 Author Share Posted February 18, 2012 Must be Ellis for me. Better football and more success. He also would never have appointed AM. Is this a joke ? People have short **** memories And selective ones ! You must be ten years old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjw63 Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 It's a closer call than I ever imagined it could be but I pick Lerner. Below is one of the reasons why. This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjw63 Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 I appreciate that people are free to choose Ellis in the same way you are free to choose, say, scientology as your religion. But given what both have done, I can't take anyone seriously who chooses him unless they're of an age that they can't remember, in which case they're excused. And this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 18, 2012 Moderator Share Posted February 18, 2012 I'm really not sure that a chairman/owner can take much credit for the "better/worse" football style. Well they don't train the players of course, but appointing a manager with a reputation for playing flair football like Atkinson, or picking a manager who plays anti-football and gets his teams relegated like McLeish is a fairly strong indicator of what you're going to get. So actually, I'd argue that their managerial appointments, which alongside stumping up for players is just about the most important choice that they a chairman has to make, has a huge bearing on the quality of football. I take the point that McLeish has a long record of workmanlike football, and that Randy appointed him, and in that instance is culpable. An example of what I mean is that by no means all the football played under BFR was riveting good football. Some of it was drivel. Some of the football played by Houllier's team was entertaining, and some of it numbing. None of that is down to whoever the chairman was at the time. The reality of the game as I see it is that the quality and entertainment value of football varies from game to game, or certainly from one period of games to another. If players, for whatever reason, confidence or limited ability for example, lose the ability to pass to a team mate 10 years away, then no manager on earth can play flowing football, because the team keeps losing the ball. That's not really a Chairman/Owner issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pacbuddies Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 lose the ability to pass to a team mate 10 years away. I'd settle for players that can pass the ball to a team mate in the same time zone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulieB Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 I do agree Ellis would never have appointed Alex McLeish, he understood the rivalry, even though he was on the SHA board for a while himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkyvilla Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Since i have been going under Ellis we achieved a promotion 2 league runners up spots 2 league cup wins and fa cup final an fa cup semi final and we were top 6 under Gregory, Little and DOL. Lerner has yet to top this and the was he is going now we never will. we are heading the same way as his Cleveland Browns Lerner has had 3 top 6 finishes, a League Cup final and an FA Cup semi-final already in what, six years as owner. That's not bad, and how is he meant to top what the club achieved under Ellis in less time in arguably a more difficult era to win anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts