madras

not at all,just some could see when the magic began to wear off. much as it did with clough at forest, reid at the mackems to a leeser extent, robson here. or feguson at Manchester United, in a nutshell for you. clough at forest is the perfect rejoinder. i'm soory if you didn't see a massivly different keegan second time round. many did. of course i saw a difference, i also saw a bloke with more experience, and saw us draw 1-1 at old trafford, thanks to Ashley+ wise were not even allowed there this season. jeez man..kinneaer got us a draw at stamford bridge. until we know what went i'll not back keegan in what he done but i will balance out those who take him as being unable to do wrong. as i've posted many times before. had wise been the manager and keegan DoF and the what many believe (without a single shred of evidence) most would still blindly back keegan. personality not evidence is dictating what many think. my evidence of two promotions, and finishes of 1st, 3rd, 6th, 2nd 2nd, win ratio 55%- dictate what i think. do you think he'd stick round if told "we don't have the cash to do what you want" ? bearing in mind that was one of the main reasons he fucked off in the first place. i've often stated he was a better coach than even he himself gave himself credit for.

true that the majority is like that.....not all though.

not at all,just some could see when the magic began to wear off. much as it did with clough at forest, reid at the mackems to a leeser extent, robson here. or feguson at Manchester United, in a nutshell for you. clough at forest is the perfect rejoinder. i'm soory if you didn't see a massivly different keegan second time round. many did. of course i saw a difference, i also saw a bloke with more experience, and saw us draw 1-1 at old trafford, thanks to Ashley+ wise were not even allowed there this season. jeez man..kinneaer got us a draw at stamford bridge. until we know what went i'll not back keegan in what he done but i will balance out those who take him as being unable to do wrong. as i've posted many times before. had wise been the manager and keegan DoF and the what many believe (without a single shred of evidence) most would still blindly back keegan. personality not evidence is dictating what many think.

Nah, the Sheard bloke is buying the club for people who won't be buying it in order to introduce them to it, so the funds they have are unnecessary. No fair bit is missing. what ?

not at all,just some could see when the magic began to wear off. much as it did with clough at forest, reid at the mackems to a leeser extent, robson here. or feguson at Manchester United, in a nutshell for you. clough at forest is the perfect rejoinder. i'm soory if you didn't see a massivly different keegan second time round. many did.

not at all,just some could see when the magic began to wear off. much as it did with clough at forest, reid at the mackems to a leeser extent, robson here.

Go back and read the so-called interview with Ashley from after Keegan was appointed. "Keegan is the man in charge, he has the final say, he names his targets we buy him" etc etc Now tell me if that was true? what if (and this is just an if mind) he names his targets and ashley says "we cant afford it" and keegan says "i want him and him alone for that position" ?

I was thinking that. Thought it was N Rock/RBS that got Gov help. A mate who works for Barclays reckons they asked the Govt and were turned down. No idea if there's any truth in that. not as i understand it. when the government were handed out the cash braclays had a sniff but didn't like the terms so done it's own refinancing in order to be free of any government interference.

it's been explained a thousand times. it'll be going into the black hole of debt the club had. even the better than expected crowds (only 2 so far so it wont make much of a dent in things) and tv revenue (not a great deal in the fizzy pop league) will not alter things. my guess is we are still running oat a quite considerable loss.

not now. scared me good and proper guv'nor

so you can imagine that throwing a punch. at a rough guess i'd probably say he has a bit more experience than you aswell ?

none at all. the phrase has more than one use.......would you fancy your chances against him ?

yeah as tonight proved. the central station has been heavily policed for a long time at times when safc are passing through.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/08/25/article-1209028-062E98B6000005DC-479_634x415.jpg Can you imagine that trying to throw a punch? yeah if he came up to you outside the local,just you and him and he said he wanted to do you ,you'd fancy your chances wouldn't you ?

Don't be daft, not a chance of it ever returning. People get slapped with bans for throwing f***ing bog roll, I doubt the police will all of a sudden just let things 'return' to how they were football violence was like an iceberg in that most of what made the headlines was inside the grounds but that was only a tiny fraction of what actually went on outside the grounds.

how is parky's Mrs by the way ?

i've dealt with a few who are the real deal aswell. like music things tend to go in peaks and troughs, something gets boring and it dies down then after a while something sparks it and it becomes trendy due to its novelty. also on a side note about the violent video games per se. it's not just the video games it's the way society treets violence. put a child infront of violent images from wherever all day to keep him/her quiet, don't check them when they behave violently or react with violence in response is a perfect recipe to produce an evil little fuck.

how can it be clearly the case when the game is built on the fact that there isn't a level playing field ? hey if i was given the some training and diet etc from the age of 6 i could be a world class sprinter.......but i'm not and thats the position i have to deal with. He didn't say it was a level playing field, he was just making a point on the amount of money this club brings in by default (without Champions League or outside help) in comparison to other clubs. If the clubs run well we could compete with anyone without outside benefactors. isn't that saying if it was a level playing field ? edit...also the ammount of money the club has to pay to generate that fan base etc has seen us pay out more and more as a percentage of turnover as wages.

I don't want to be taken over by Moat if he can't add to the squad, we need sufficent funds to strengthen the squad end of. Shepherd was not that rich and yet we were challenging for the Champions League, Albeit with him being a bit overzealous with the clubs cashflow. The revenue this club makes could easily see us ok in the premiership under a proper chairman. 1) You make sure you do your homework on players before you buy. 2) Ensure you have a sensible wage structure. 3) Develop youth so you don't have to buy all the time. I would rather have the Arsenal model than one of Chelsea's or Man City's, even though it would be nice to have loads of cash thrown at the club I wouldn't feel the same satisfaction as if it was done from the ground up. If no club had benefactors, if there was no champions league money, then NUFC would be in the top 2 or 3 for finance. What? Look, just pointing out facts. to be a fact it has to be true. you made an assertion which happens to be false. I broughgt up facts based on season ticket sales previous, crowd figures, shirt sales. I brought in the fact that the Champions league brings in millions and build a momentous advantage, I brought in a fact that Chelsea have an finacial advantage over clubs with bigger fan bases. Now if the finance was based solely on fan base my premise would be true. Fact, fact. fact. would it bollocks, you leave out things like wages that we pay compared to the likes of bolton and wigan who even though we have higher turnover and the past euro money have far less debt than we do. it all comes down to wages. it's possible that without benefactors and champs league we may be in the top 2 or 3 in turnover but as we have been a fantastic example of ,a high turnover doesn't mean a lot if we are spending more than you can afford. edit....unless of course you are confusing "finance" with turnover like the papers do when clubs losing money hand over fist are in the rich list based purely on turnover. To be fair, he just said that, on a level playing field, we would be in the top 2 or 3 in terms of income; which is clearly the case. What the idiots running the club do with that income is a separate matter. how can it be clearly the case when the game is built on the fact that there isn't a level playing field ? hey if i was given the some training and diet etc from the age of 6 i could be a world class sprinter.......but i'm not and thats the position i have to deal with.

I don't want to be taken over by Moat if he can't add to the squad, we need sufficent funds to strengthen the squad end of. Shepherd was not that rich and yet we were challenging for the Champions League, Albeit with him being a bit overzealous with the clubs cashflow. The revenue this club makes could easily see us ok in the premiership under a proper chairman. 1) You make sure you do your homework on players before you buy. 2) Ensure you have a sensible wage structure. 3) Develop youth so you don't have to buy all the time. I would rather have the Arsenal model than one of Chelsea's or Man City's, even though it would be nice to have loads of cash thrown at the club I wouldn't feel the same satisfaction as if it was done from the ground up. If no club had benefactors, if there was no champions league money, then NUFC would be in the top 2 or 3 for finance. What? Look, just pointing out facts. to be a fact it has to be true. you made an assertion which happens to be false. I broughgt up facts based on season ticket sales previous, crowd figures, shirt sales. I brought in the fact that the Champions league brings in millions and build a momentous advantage, I brought in a fact that Chelsea have an finacial advantage over clubs with bigger fan bases. Now if the finance was based solely on fan base my premise would be true. Fact, fact. fact. would it bollocks, you leave out things like wages that we pay compared to the likes of bolton and wigan who even though we have higher turnover and the past euro money have far less debt than we do. it all comes down to wages. it's possible that without benefactors and champs league we may be in the top 2 or 3 in turnover but as we have been a fantastic example of ,a high turnover doesn't mean a lot if we are spending more than you can afford. edit....unless of course you are confusing "finance" with turnover like the papers do when clubs losing money hand over fist are in the rich list based purely on turnover.

Only about a thousand times, yeah. where ?

geoff sheard ? is this the fella ? http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/String-of-debts-for-Sheffield.4531470.jp my apologetics if it's already been posted.

I don't want to be taken over by Moat if he can't add to the squad, we need sufficent funds to strengthen the squad end of. Shepherd was not that rich and yet we were challenging for the Champions League, Albeit with him being a bit overzealous with the clubs cashflow. The revenue this club makes could easily see us ok in the premiership under a proper chairman. 1) You make sure you do your homework on players before you buy. 2) Ensure you have a sensible wage structure. 3) Develop youth so you don't have to buy all the time. I would rather have the Arsenal model than one of Chelsea's or Man City's, even though it would be nice to have loads of cash thrown at the club I wouldn't feel the same satisfaction as if it was done from the ground up. If no club had benefactors, if there was no champions league money, then NUFC would be in the top 2 or 3 for finance. What? Look, just pointing out facts. to be a fact it has to be true. you made an assertion which happens to be false.

the ocean....as if theres only one. your mind is like an ocean. full of s***. Norwich vs Sunderland. Logic. from "the" ocean to "an" ocean......who's full of s***. the rest doesn't make sense.

or what ?