From: paul@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: rec.sport.soccer
Subject: Re: GRAEME SOUNESS - vote of 'confidence'(?)
Date: 12 Oct 92 12:07:52 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <1992Oct10.113646.13131@phillip.edu.au>, t8914229@phillip.edu.au writes:
> this is in response to my posting entitled "SOUNESS GETS VOTE OF CONFIDENCE".
> 					    ===============================
> [what i posted:]
>>doesn't a vote of confidence usually mean that they have the support 
>>of the board, etc.?????
>>isn't it a vote of NO confidence that usually means that they DON'T have
>>the support of the board, etc.?????
> 
> [one (of many) reply i got - from "paul@vax.ox.ac.uk" "Paul Griffiths"]
> to quote: "Ah, such touching naivety - it's heartwarming to read it!
> 
> [from another one.....]
> to quote: "Are you really that naive?"
> 
> etc.....
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> look who the fuckin bloody naive ones are - all you who replied to me
> personally and posted on the network re. me and what i wrote can go suck
> an egg.  get the facts correct (or even accurate) before you condone me.
> i am certainly not opposed to insults, etc. but only if they are accurate.
> i have said many times that MY BELOVED LIVERPOOL shits on me any time and
> what others say about me is irrelevant and it doesn't matter a shit.  the
> important thing is that MY BELOVED are the GREATEST in the world and GRAEME
> SOUNESS is our manager.  all you fuckwits probably can't admit that you got
> your facts inaccurate, etc.  however, i am not after any apologies - just get
> your fuckin facts correct before attacking me.  you're all fuckin jealous of
> SOUNESS.
> so, i may be telling my grandmother to suck eggs but GET FUCKED THE LOT OF
> YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I almost hesitate to reply to this, as my powers of debate can not possibly
match the finely argued line you adopt, nor can I attempt to match your most
impressive use of vocabulary, but never mind, here goes ...


What is interesting is that you got no postings disagreeing that Souness was
given a vote of confidence - it was widely reported here too and we are all I
suspect in agreement that it happened, so no-one is doubting you on this.

Perhaps you need to look up naive in a dictionary?  What posters were
questioning was your willingness to accept that the statement meant what it
said.  If you are a follower of football in general (rather than just YOUR
BELOVED LIVERPOOL F.C. THE GREATEST) you will have encountered similar
statments being made by Chairmen of other clubs, and I would estimate that in
90% of instances their 'vote of confidence' is rapidly followed by the sacking
of the manager.

What happens is that a team is doing badly, the press (& r.s.s) start to raise
doubts about the manager and confront the Chairman. He finds himself in a
corner where all he can do is protest his support for the manager, while behind
the scenes efforts may very well be being made to find a new manager. Once the
new manager is lined up, all that remains is for the Chairman to wave goodbye
to the old manager.

Forgive our cynicism at your posting but many of us have been following English
football for long enough to know what the habitual consequences of a vote of
confidence are.

Admittedly, a Liverpool Chairman has never given his manager a vote of
confidence before - but then they have never had a manager who has been doing
so badly that press & fans have been calling for/suggesting his replacement.

Paul.