madras

whens enrique back ?

Profits were made in the transfer windows yet the club lost in the region of £30 million and £20 million in the last two set of accounts and will lose up to £40 million this year. Ashley has paid the difference so far and will do so again. We've made these losses without having to pay out the interest on the loans which we no longer have. How much would these losses have been if we still had to pay the interest on the loans? What would have been the impact on the losses if we kept adding to them with more interest bearing loans? How would these losses have been paid without Ashley? Who would have paid the bills when they were due if we hadn't changed ownership? Who would have loaned us money during the credit crunch? You can't just pretend that everything was OK, it clearly wasn't. has this been a group decision to come back i've been hear all along and you still haven't told me where the money was going to come from to compete when we are needing 30mill a season or so to survive day to day. my opinion is that fred gambled,lost,ashley took over and looks lost and now the chickens are coming home to s*** all over the house. so...how many years and how many owners do you think it willl take to find someone to match the mediocrity of regular eureopean qualification achieved under the Halls and Shepherd Genuine question to anybody,not just you oooooh at a rough guess about as long as it will take for you to give straight forward answers to these questions............. which in one way or another i've been asking for months now. well, after today, do you still think buying those cut price players is "cost effective". We are going down unless we win next monday night i agree about monday night.....yet you still haven't answered my questions. (ever thought of a career in politics ?)

and any club that is a variation of wimbledon.

when we first came up the players were arrarently on low basics and big bonuses. a good idea until players you want go elsewhere for higher basics.

Profits were made in the transfer windows yet the club lost in the region of £30 million and £20 million in the last two set of accounts and will lose up to £40 million this year. Ashley has paid the difference so far and will do so again. We've made these losses without having to pay out the interest on the loans which we no longer have. How much would these losses have been if we still had to pay the interest on the loans? What would have been the impact on the losses if we kept adding to them with more interest bearing loans? How would these losses have been paid without Ashley? Who would have paid the bills when they were due if we hadn't changed ownership? Who would have loaned us money during the credit crunch? You can't just pretend that everything was OK, it clearly wasn't. has this been a group decision to come back i've been hear all along and you still haven't told me where the money was going to come from to compete when we are needing 30mill a season or so to survive day to day. my opinion is that fred gambled,lost,ashley took over and looks lost and now the chickens are coming home to s*** all over the house. so...how many years and how many owners do you think it willl take to find someone to match the mediocrity of regular eureopean qualification achieved under the Halls and Shepherd Genuine question to anybody,not just you oooooh at a rough guess about as long as it will take for you to give straight forward answers to these questions............. which in one way or another i've been asking for months now.

This. I would prefer to be playing at the same time as everyone else ideally, but at the end of the day we have to just focus on our next game and make sure we do the business, if we do it makes no difference when anyone plays or doesn't play. i would prefer that aswell......aint gonna happen though. the results will have an affect when we play later. saturdays results will have little bearing...sunderlands win drops hull in the s*** as does stokes over blackburn. the position for us today hasn't changed a great deal.....however next weekend ? Exactly why we need to just look at getting a result one game at a time. The situation is going to change every week over the next month, all we can control is our own performance so best just to focus on that, everything else is out of our hands anyway. easy to say.......impossible to do. next monday if results go our way the previous weekned, the team will be a bit more upbeat the fans will be less desperate and probably more supportive. it can work fpr and against.......i wish all games kicked off at the same time.

got a nice ring to it................i was thinking.......... "come here and we'll singe your beards come here and we'll singe your beards come here and we'll singe your beards come here and we'll singe your beards come here and we'll singe your beards"

if rangers win will you lay man utd as cover ? where did you get odds like that ? Skybet 2 questions there

we have form....kicked their armada arses last time.

This. I would prefer to be playing at the same time as everyone else ideally, but at the end of the day we have to just focus on our next game and make sure we do the business, if we do it makes no difference when anyone plays or doesn't play. i would prefer that aswell......aint gonna happen though. the results will have an affect when we play later. saturdays results will have little bearing...sunderlands win drops hull in the shit as does stokes over blackburn. the position for us today hasn't changed a great deal.....however next weekend ?

should have went when he assaulted Bellamy on the training ground, and blatantly put his ego before the best interests of the club, by playing him out of position to impose authority on him. This isn't hindsight Dave, I said it at the time. careful.............. unless you can prove it.

if rangers win will you lay man utd as cover ? where did you get odds like that ?

Profits were made in the transfer windows yet the club lost in the region of £30 million and £20 million in the last two set of accounts and will lose up to £40 million this year. Ashley has paid the difference so far and will do so again. We've made these losses without having to pay out the interest on the loans which we no longer have. How much would these losses have been if we still had to pay the interest on the loans? What would have been the impact on the losses if we kept adding to them with more interest bearing loans? How would these losses have been paid without Ashley? Who would have paid the bills when they were due if we hadn't changed ownership? Who would have loaned us money during the credit crunch? You can't just pretend that everything was OK, it clearly wasn't. has this been a group decision to come back i've been hear all along and you still haven't told me where the money was going to come from to compete when we are needing 30mill a season or so to survive day to day. my opinion is that fred gambled,lost,ashley took over and looks lost and now the chickens are coming home to shit all over the house.

you don't read a thing others print do you ? i'll recap (again) what i've said. we needed stabilising financially from where fred left us ,because you can only rack up losses for so long before the banks think you a bad enough risk to say "no more". take alook a round,it is happening to a few clubs. i have no problems with taking a risk, but when you take a few risks and they've failed,then it's time to stop and steady things before things spiral out of control (which they were doing) please describe the clubs position on and off the pitch when fred left ? where would the money have come from to compete with the top 4 if we are having to borrow 30mill just to survive day to day ? why can't you understand that those who have done well may have to be got rid of when they do poorly over a longer term ? i've always answered all your questions straightforwardly, please don't do the dodge of giving opaque answers that aren't really answers.

even if it were true it would depend on his remit. no-one actually knows what wise's remit was or gordon milnes.

actually you don't, you give one fact repeated ad nauseam - the rest is your opinion tarted up as fact through the smoke and mirror act of condescension between yourself & JJ7 there were facts and opinions, i'll enlighten you: FS was a big part [fnar] of the European qualifications (facts) but he also ran out of ideas (strong conjecture/opinion) and the club was nearly bankrupt/in a dire financial situation (fact) what's so hard about it for you? you quote the Euro qualifications and JJ7 says: "Yep, then he lost the plot, made too many mistakes and nearly bankrupted the club" he's not contradicting you, you can surely understand that? he's referring to 2 different points in time man then you reply and tell him to repost his rubbish in 5 years!!! you remind me of billy pilgrim dude, totally shot to f*** through all the time travelling you've done so you can't work out simple linear facts and events anymore Good points. Im not biting here, honestly as its just a general point, but there are very few people in business or politics or whatever who are always good. Most people usually start to fail and make mistakes in the end. Look at Hitler who performed miricles at the start, Thatcher, Brooks Mileson, Peter Ridsdale, Doug Ellis etc..... Even if Freddy had won us the league for three seasons between 1997 and 2000, you can't just stick with them when they continue to make mistake after mistake. absolutely agree, and it's a balance thing we'd tipped the scales under FS, and as a PLC in my opinion, but we got very unlucky with who bought us out - as has been said countless times the ashley period being an abject failure to date does not validate the later years of FS & the PLC at the end of the day, it depends how you look at it. Football is a risky business. A lot of people say - and not just on here - that if you aren't in europe, you are s***. Construed : what they mean is they have known nothing less than regularly playing in europe, so don't listen to people like me who try to tell them that such things aren't automatic and only the good clubs with good boards qualify regularly for europe. You hit the nail slightly on the head when you say we were "unlucky with who bought us out"........having seen the club when we were REALLY s**** [far more than the supposed "s****" of the recent past, until now since Ashley came in] I see it differently, I see the vast majority of the clubs in the top 2 leagues as being s****, and I say we "got lucky" when we had good directors. It might be quite a while until we "get lucky" again ....... and a lot of people will be sitting around in 10 years time and looking back at the Halls and Shepherd and realise it, but I obviously hope not bearing in mind my age. This is all I've said from day 1 by the way. At least some people - since ashley - have begun to understand. wrongish, it also depends on why you look at it in a certain way. for example why are you determined,against all reason, to try and make out that we weren't in the s*** at the end of fred's reign despite all the evidence saying we were ? why are you and others like you, against all reason, determined to try and make out that the Halls and Shepherd weren't the best owners we have had at the club for 50 years and it will very difficult to replace them with better ? And - accept that Mike ashley is taking the club downwards, among the also rans, like the vast majority of other football club owners instead of trying to get among the other top clubs which is where we should be and where we spent our time under the Halls and Shepherd. People do accept that Mike Ashley is taking the club downwards. However, why do you not accept that when the Halls and Shepherd sold the club to Ashley we were already started on the journey downwards. We may have had years and years competing with the top clubs but the bubble had already burst when Ashley bought us, and this was after others had looked at the books and walked away laughing at the financial mess we were in. because they ticked the 2 biggest boxes. They had the ambition to succeed, and they backed their appointed managers That is how we qualfied for europe more than any club bar 4 during their time running the club. I hope you enjoyed it, because we might have s*** directors for years, or decades, before we get good ones again. Same old hyperbole. So you must have missed the grumblings of fans who were not satisfied at the s*** that we were turning out week in week out. Were you at the Sheffield United game for instance? Of course I enjoyed the european games, that goes without saying. But that does not excuse Hall and Shepherd from starting us down the road that we are now on. Things had already turned sour before Mike Ashley came along. He has failed to turn that around and that should not be forgotten either, but you cannot say that Hall and Shepherd are blameless in this. football, like life, is all ups and downs. Fortunately, we had a board who delivered more ups than most clubs will ever see. Because they ticked the most important boxes, unlike 80-90% of clubs and their own predecessors and their first successor too, it will be very difficult to find better. Could take decades in fact. Shame they were so s*** it takes so long to find someone better isn't it ? Of course football is about ups and downs, but no decent chairman should let the downs lead a club towards nearly being bankrupt. Leeds had massive ups under Ridsdale, but look at them now because of what happened back then. Theres ambition, then theres stupidity. I agree that Shepherds ambition was great when we were qualifying for the Champions League under Robson. But Shepherd was stupid in the timing of his sacking of Robson, then his next 2 appointments. A chairmans main job is to pick a manager, and he failed not once, but TWICE in a row. Throwing money at a s**** manager, who is unlikely to get you a return on your investment (i.e. by qualifying for the Champions League) is pure stupidity. NE5, you look at things too simplistically and ignore what others are saying. You're either on the wind up, or you just love an arguement and don't actually believe what you're saying. I believe what I'm saying alright. I always have, and whats more, all the things I have said in the past which I got flak for, are all vindicated because they turned out to be right. Just to clarify, do you think appointing Souness and giving him £50 million to spend was the right thing to do? Can you not see that appointing Souness was unambitious, where as giving him £50 million was very ambitious? These things don't match as Souness was never going to take us to the Champions League. The Champions League is where we would need to be if we were to see a return in the investment. Its bad management. I don't really know how many times this has to be said. I didn't appoint Souness. Neither did you . They appointed him, and they backed their manager. Don't you understand this ? BTW, you should really be asking this sort of question to the numerous people who completely supported the throwing of the money at him, and his sales, at the time, who are now complaining about the consequences, instead of someone like me who said that we shouldn't be doing it, at the time. Eh! I didn't say you appointed Souness. Do you not have an opinion on the Souness appointment? If we're going to judge Shepherds record in splashing the cash, surely we can judge his managerial appointments. They're linked. I know fine well he backed his manager. However his manager was awful which led to the failure. He was a poor appointment, sure, plenty of people believed in him though, not me. However, the point is that - as unbelievable has said along with myself - YOU appoint someone and YOU back YOUR appointment. You don't appoint someone with the intent of not backing him or not believing in him. Or maybe you do, at least Mike Ashley has. Which means he appointed a good manager and DIDN'T back him = manager leaves the club = you will never get anywhere even if you are lucky enough to find one of the 3 or 4 "right" managers. You don't seem to understand that over 90% of football teams "fail" in the strictest sense. Which is of course why you seriously undervalued [and still do] when we had a decent board. Ashley's idea of success is the Halls and Shepherd's idea of mediocrity, such is the difference between them. I understand exactly what you're saying, however I value appointing a good manager more than you by the looks of it. If you appoint a manager, of course you should back him. I wouldnt disagree with that, but the mistake is in the dreadful appointment. That f***ed up any plan Shepherd had. It doesnt matter that he thought Souness would do a good job, the vast majority of people thought he was the wrong man, and they were proved right. Shepherd appointed someone for what looks like the sole reason of sorting out an out of control dressing room. Appointing a good manager, the right manager, isnt luck . We should have had loads of options when Robson left, or certainly at the end of the previous season. We could have appointed someone who was just alright, someone who would keep us on the fringe of things. We appointed a man sending another team to the Championship. It was a shocking appointment which undone years of hard work. Even after that, he made another shocking appointment. The most important job of a chairman is to appoint the team manager, and Shepherd failed, on a huge scale. Just by saying, "oh well he backed his manager" doesnt get him off the hook. Im no fan of Ashley so I wouldnt even try and defend him. Its not exactly rocket science though. Appoint a good manager, or at worst someone half decent and then work with them and back them. Don't appoint a good manager and not back him. Don't appoint a s*** manager as he will just waste your money. Shepherds judgement has to be called into question post 2004, however successful we were beforehand. can you explain how so many other clubs don't do it then ? Then ally it to the fact that we qualified for europe more than any club bar 4 during their time running the club, taking it from one foot in the 3rd division and unable to sell for 1.25m quid into one of the biggest in the country worth between 100m and 200m quid ? I'm making no apologies for mentioning this again, because its what happened, and it's realistic and truthful taking the whole picture of what they did when they ran the club. It does tend to tell you that we appointed better managers and ran a better club than most clubs in the country. You do see this ? And don't take it as an excuse for defending Souness, because I do not and didn't. I was on here telling people we should sack him and we shouldn't bankroll him as much as I "defend" the old board, and got the same amount of flak for it !!! What you say is of course sensible, but you have to accept the point that they appointed him because they thought he would do a good job for the club and backed him, they stuck to the way of doing things, which is quite correct and the very antithesis of appointing someone and not giving them the tools to succeed, which is what Ashley did to Keegan. No board will ever succeed if they don't give their managers the necessary to do the job they want him to do. Very few boards do this, and this is why they were a good board despite their mistake in appointing Souness. shall i finish the story off for you though, ot goes something like this................" then proceeded to run the club in such a way that we dropped to lower mid table and looked like dropping further, for these fantastic performances the club paid near 70% of its incomings purely on wages, we spent 5 years worth of sponsorship revenue right up front and still went backwards on and off the pitch, appointed managers the calibre of souness and roeder (doersn't matter though as getting a good manager is just a lottery, there was as much chance kinnear being fantastic as there was getting someone who at least came with a decent CV).

actually you don't, you give one fact repeated ad nauseam - the rest is your opinion tarted up as fact through the smoke and mirror act of condescension between yourself & JJ7 there were facts and opinions, i'll enlighten you: FS was a big part [fnar] of the European qualifications (facts) but he also ran out of ideas (strong conjecture/opinion) and the club was nearly bankrupt/in a dire financial situation (fact) what's so hard about it for you? you quote the Euro qualifications and JJ7 says: "Yep, then he lost the plot, made too many mistakes and nearly bankrupted the club" he's not contradicting you, you can surely understand that? he's referring to 2 different points in time man then you reply and tell him to repost his rubbish in 5 years!!! you remind me of billy pilgrim dude, totally shot to f*** through all the time travelling you've done so you can't work out simple linear facts and events anymore Good points. Im not biting here, honestly as its just a general point, but there are very few people in business or politics or whatever who are always good. Most people usually start to fail and make mistakes in the end. Look at Hitler who performed miricles at the start, Thatcher, Brooks Mileson, Peter Ridsdale, Doug Ellis etc..... Even if Freddy had won us the league for three seasons between 1997 and 2000, you can't just stick with them when they continue to make mistake after mistake. absolutely agree, and it's a balance thing we'd tipped the scales under FS, and as a PLC in my opinion, but we got very unlucky with who bought us out - as has been said countless times the ashley period being an abject failure to date does not validate the later years of FS & the PLC at the end of the day, it depends how you look at it. Football is a risky business. A lot of people say - and not just on here - that if you aren't in europe, you are s***. Construed : what they mean is they have known nothing less than regularly playing in europe, so don't listen to people like me who try to tell them that such things aren't automatic and only the good clubs with good boards qualify regularly for europe. You hit the nail slightly on the head when you say we were "unlucky with who bought us out"........having seen the club when we were REALLY s**** [far more than the supposed "s****" of the recent past, until now since Ashley came in] I see it differently, I see the vast majority of the clubs in the top 2 leagues as being s****, and I say we "got lucky" when we had good directors. It might be quite a while until we "get lucky" again ....... and a lot of people will be sitting around in 10 years time and looking back at the Halls and Shepherd and realise it, but I obviously hope not bearing in mind my age. This is all I've said from day 1 by the way. At least some people - since ashley - have begun to understand. wrongish, it also depends on why you look at it in a certain way. for example why are you determined,against all reason, to try and make out that we weren't in the s*** at the end of fred's reign despite all the evidence saying we were ? why are you and others like you, against all reason, determined to try and make out that the Halls and Shepherd weren't the best owners we have had at the club for 50 years and it will very difficult to replace them with better ? And - accept that Mike ashley is taking the club downwards, among the also rans, like the vast majority of other football club owners instead of trying to get among the other top clubs which is where we should be and where we spent our time under the Halls and Shepherd. People do accept that Mike Ashley is taking the club downwards. However, why do you not accept that when the Halls and Shepherd sold the club to Ashley we were already started on the journey downwards. We may have had years and years competing with the top clubs but the bubble had already burst when Ashley bought us, and this was after others had looked at the books and walked away laughing at the financial mess we were in. because they ticked the 2 biggest boxes. They had the ambition to succeed, and they backed their appointed managers That is how we qualfied for europe more than any club bar 4 during their time running the club. I hope you enjoyed it, because we might have s*** directors for years, or decades, before we get good ones again. Same old hyperbole. So you must have missed the grumblings of fans who were not satisfied at the s*** that we were turning out week in week out. Were you at the Sheffield United game for instance? Of course I enjoyed the european games, that goes without saying. But that does not excuse Hall and Shepherd from starting us down the road that we are now on. Things had already turned sour before Mike Ashley came along. He has failed to turn that around and that should not be forgotten either, but you cannot say that Hall and Shepherd are blameless in this. football, like life, is all ups and downs. Fortunately, we had a board who delivered more ups than most clubs will ever see. Because they ticked the most important boxes, unlike 80-90% of clubs and their own predecessors and their first successor too, it will be very difficult to find better. Could take decades in fact. Shame they were so s*** it takes so long to find someone better isn't it ? Of course football is about ups and downs, but no decent chairman should let the downs lead a club towards nearly being bankrupt. Leeds had massive ups under Ridsdale, but look at them now because of what happened back then. Theres ambition, then theres stupidity. I agree that Shepherds ambition was great when we were qualifying for the Champions League under Robson. But Shepherd was stupid in the timing of his sacking of Robson, then his next 2 appointments. A chairmans main job is to pick a manager, and he failed not once, but TWICE in a row. Throwing money at a s**** manager, who is unlikely to get you a return on your investment (i.e. by qualifying for the Champions League) is pure stupidity. NE5, you look at things too simplistically and ignore what others are saying. You're either on the wind up, or you just love an arguement and don't actually believe what you're saying. It was pretty clear Shepherd wanted to cut down on the borrowing by the appointment of Allardyce , and this bankruptcy talk is all speculation - it didnt happen so how can you presume it was going to happen. Shepherd could clearly hold back on spending and be prudent ie: summer of Bowyer and Woodgate sale, yet the ironic thing is we didn't spend in that summer and Shepherd got criticized beyond belief for lack of ambition. When really he was being cautious as we weren't guaranteed Champions League football that year. Yet now in hindsight have forum members saying 'spent too much!', 'out of control!', 'ridsdale!'. It's all a bit ridiculous. spot on, and the bold bit is obvious. we have cut down and are still looking at a possible 30mill loss this year............where would this money have come from before spending on players to compete ?

actually you don't, you give one fact repeated ad nauseam - the rest is your opinion tarted up as fact through the smoke and mirror act of condescension between yourself & JJ7 there were facts and opinions, i'll enlighten you: FS was a big part [fnar] of the European qualifications (facts) but he also ran out of ideas (strong conjecture/opinion) and the club was nearly bankrupt/in a dire financial situation (fact) what's so hard about it for you? you quote the Euro qualifications and JJ7 says: "Yep, then he lost the plot, made too many mistakes and nearly bankrupted the club" he's not contradicting you, you can surely understand that? he's referring to 2 different points in time man then you reply and tell him to repost his rubbish in 5 years!!! you remind me of billy pilgrim dude, totally shot to f*** through all the time travelling you've done so you can't work out simple linear facts and events anymore Good points. Im not biting here, honestly as its just a general point, but there are very few people in business or politics or whatever who are always good. Most people usually start to fail and make mistakes in the end. Look at Hitler who performed miricles at the start, Thatcher, Brooks Mileson, Peter Ridsdale, Doug Ellis etc..... Even if Freddy had won us the league for three seasons between 1997 and 2000, you can't just stick with them when they continue to make mistake after mistake. absolutely agree, and it's a balance thing we'd tipped the scales under FS, and as a PLC in my opinion, but we got very unlucky with who bought us out - as has been said countless times the ashley period being an abject failure to date does not validate the later years of FS & the PLC at the end of the day, it depends how you look at it. Football is a risky business. A lot of people say - and not just on here - that if you aren't in europe, you are s***. Construed : what they mean is they have known nothing less than regularly playing in europe, so don't listen to people like me who try to tell them that such things aren't automatic and only the good clubs with good boards qualify regularly for europe. You hit the nail slightly on the head when you say we were "unlucky with who bought us out"........having seen the club when we were REALLY s**** [far more than the supposed "s****" of the recent past, until now since Ashley came in] I see it differently, I see the vast majority of the clubs in the top 2 leagues as being s****, and I say we "got lucky" when we had good directors. It might be quite a while until we "get lucky" again ....... and a lot of people will be sitting around in 10 years time and looking back at the Halls and Shepherd and realise it, but I obviously hope not bearing in mind my age. This is all I've said from day 1 by the way. At least some people - since ashley - have begun to understand. wrongish, it also depends on why you look at it in a certain way. for example why are you determined,against all reason, to try and make out that we weren't in the s*** at the end of fred's reign despite all the evidence saying we were ? why are you and others like you, against all reason, determined to try and make out that the Halls and Shepherd weren't the best owners we have had at the club for 50 years and it will very difficult to replace them with better ? And - accept that Mike ashley is taking the club downwards, among the also rans, like the vast majority of other football club owners instead of trying to get among the other top clubs which is where we should be and where we spent our time under the Halls and Shepherd. i'm not and i've never said they weren't. remember my clough alagory (ie he may be the best you've had but if they stopo doing it and start going backwards with no hope of turning it round then they must go) nice to see that your way of combating my opinion is to make up what it is i'm saying. mike ashley just hasn't stopped us going where we were headed prior to his arrival.

advantage if results earlier results have gone our way, disadvantage if earlier results have gone against us.

Excellent shout. In that case, we're looking for a player who has played for one of the two, Chelsea and/or Arsenal as well, and who could have appeared in Champions League or UEFA Cup finals in the countries specified. Not impossible. Emmanuel Petit springs to mind, maybe? man utd or liverpool ?

funny as i could swear they are just people who whinge a lot when things don't go their way and use excuses when the whinging doesn't work.

i'd also be looking at the wording of the questions ie "won trophies in spain,italy and scotland" ie champs league final was at hampden the other year, the question does not necessarily mean he won a scottish trophy. also it doesn't say he was a player, could have been a manager or coach or whatever in for euro finals in those countries.

Yeah. Paul Ince never played for England. and the london club he won the prem with ? my answer is to the OP question. paul ince,didier drogba,gattuso and shola amapitony.

sam slags off benitez for making jestures that measnt he thought the game was over with more than an hour still to play. cast your minds back to pompey at home last season when sam done exactly that when 2 goals down with more than 70mins left. my contempt for the man grows by the day.

i don't think the italians have caught up from a few years back when juve were relegated and they had a couple of clubs banned from europe (didn't they or was it a dream ?)