madras

They have got to be taking the piss. Can't believe I'm saying this but, after reading that pukey drivvel I think I preferred it when they just hurled insults and sang "sack the board" Are we going to have a "join hands for Keegan" moment ? That would certainly enhance the protest experience. Damned if they do.... How will you contribute to raising the desire to speak in a unified voice? By coming on here and arguing with the naysaying divvies. I'm afraid you've drifted a bit "off message" here. Please internalise the core message "unity is strength" and adjust your hemline accordingly. So there's nothing whatsoever they can do that you'll approve of? Why not do what the Magpie Group did to oust McKeag? Find an investor who will challenge Ashley like the Magpie Group championed John Hall? That way the NUSC would not just be carping hopelessly but actually providing an alternative solkution. the 2 major points with this one, is that nobody else is on the horizon yet to do what Sir John did, and Malcolm Dix, and also that the situation is nowhere near as dire as the one under McKeag, Westwood - yet - whatever anyone who wasn't there may say to the contrary. This is why I have posted a few times that the NUSC need to get a profile figure on board to get them publicity, is GOOD publicity, because there is no doubt that their motives are spot on. and ironically their aims are "anyone but ashley". very much in the "anyone but fred" vein. I think if you have followed my posts as seems to be the case, you will know that I have said - incredibly - that we actually could do worse than Ashley. The odds are about the same as those of finding someone who would do better than the Halls and Shepherd. wrong......the whole point is in someone to take us forward from where we are NOW. if ashley had won us the league 5 years a go and we were now in this position your logic (?) says to keep him there and support him. but he didn't. If however he had shown that he knew how to be successful, then I would have a belief that he could do it again, yes. I think this is your point, is it not ? no. it's always taken more than "they've done it before" to convince me " they can do it again".....no matter who it is. Have it your way. The Halls and Shepherd paid the price, I hope you are pleased with the result i don't think the result would have been much different (except i think allardyce could well have took us down)

They have got to be taking the piss. Can't believe I'm saying this but, after reading that pukey drivvel I think I preferred it when they just hurled insults and sang "sack the board" Are we going to have a "join hands for Keegan" moment ? That would certainly enhance the protest experience. Damned if they do.... How will you contribute to raising the desire to speak in a unified voice? By coming on here and arguing with the naysaying divvies. I'm afraid you've drifted a bit "off message" here. Please internalise the core message "unity is strength" and adjust your hemline accordingly. So there's nothing whatsoever they can do that you'll approve of? Why not do what the Magpie Group did to oust McKeag? Find an investor who will challenge Ashley like the Magpie Group championed John Hall? That way the NUSC would not just be carping hopelessly but actually providing an alternative solkution. the 2 major points with this one, is that nobody else is on the horizon yet to do what Sir John did, and Malcolm Dix, and also that the situation is nowhere near as dire as the one under McKeag, Westwood - yet - whatever anyone who wasn't there may say to the contrary. This is why I have posted a few times that the NUSC need to get a profile figure on board to get them publicity, is GOOD publicity, because there is no doubt that their motives are spot on. and ironically their aims are "anyone but ashley". very much in the "anyone but fred" vein. I think if you have followed my posts as seems to be the case, you will know that I have said - incredibly - that we actually could do worse than Ashley. The odds are about the same as those of finding someone who would do better than the Halls and Shepherd. wrong......the whole point is in someone to take us forward from where we are NOW. if ashley had won us the league 5 years a go and we were now in this position your logic (?) says to keep him there and support him. but he didn't. If however he had shown that he knew how to be successful, then I would have a belief that he could do it again, yes. I think this is your point, is it not ? no. it's always taken more than "they've done it before" to convince me " they can do it again".....no matter who it is.

They have got to be taking the piss. Can't believe I'm saying this but, after reading that pukey drivvel I think I preferred it when they just hurled insults and sang "sack the board" Are we going to have a "join hands for Keegan" moment ? That would certainly enhance the protest experience. Damned if they do.... How will you contribute to raising the desire to speak in a unified voice? By coming on here and arguing with the naysaying divvies. I'm afraid you've drifted a bit "off message" here. Please internalise the core message "unity is strength" and adjust your hemline accordingly. So there's nothing whatsoever they can do that you'll approve of? Why not do what the Magpie Group did to oust McKeag? Find an investor who will challenge Ashley like the Magpie Group championed John Hall? That way the NUSC would not just be carping hopelessly but actually providing an alternative solkution. the 2 major points with this one, is that nobody else is on the horizon yet to do what Sir John did, and Malcolm Dix, and also that the situation is nowhere near as dire as the one under McKeag, Westwood - yet - whatever anyone who wasn't there may say to the contrary. This is why I have posted a few times that the NUSC need to get a profile figure on board to get them publicity, is GOOD publicity, because there is no doubt that their motives are spot on. and ironically their aims are "anyone but ashley". very much in the "anyone but fred" vein. I think if you have followed my posts as seems to be the case, you will know that I have said - incredibly - that we actually could do worse than Ashley. The odds are about the same as those of finding someone who would do better than the Halls and Shepherd. wrong......the whole point is in someone to take us forward from where we are NOW. if ashley had won us the league 5 years a go and we were now in this position your logic (?) says to keep him there and support him.

They have got to be taking the piss. Can't believe I'm saying this but, after reading that pukey drivvel I think I preferred it when they just hurled insults and sang "sack the board" Are we going to have a "join hands for Keegan" moment ? That would certainly enhance the protest experience. Damned if they do.... How will you contribute to raising the desire to speak in a unified voice? By coming on here and arguing with the naysaying divvies. I'm afraid you've drifted a bit "off message" here. Please internalise the core message "unity is strength" and adjust your hemline accordingly. So there's nothing whatsoever they can do that you'll approve of? Why not do what the Magpie Group did to oust McKeag? Find an investor who will challenge Ashley like the Magpie Group championed John Hall? That way the NUSC would not just be carping hopelessly but actually providing an alternative solkution. the 2 major points with this one, is that nobody else is on the horizon yet to do what Sir John did, and Malcolm Dix, and also that the situation is nowhere near as dire as the one under McKeag, Westwood - yet - whatever anyone who wasn't there may say to the contrary. This is why I have posted a few times that the NUSC need to get a profile figure on board to get them publicity, is GOOD publicity, because there is no doubt that their motives are spot on. and ironically their aims are "anyone but ashley". very much in the "anyone but fred" vein.

Join the club. how much ?

he wants to be debt free for the savings not paying the interest will make. paying up front just means you are more likely to live within your means. He wants to be debt free cause HE STILL WANTS TO SELL THE CLUB. NO OTHER REASON. well there's a newsflash. and in the meantime being debt free lowers the running costs. Being debt free means being unable to compete. as does failing on your gamble to get success by borrowing. you're not very good at this WUMming are you ? You'd need to ask the top 6-8 clubs about that. most operate at a profit which makes it easier to finance debt,those that aren't backed by a sugar daddy that is. (f*** it if we are having to go through where i was with NE5 3 month a go) Actually only 8 clubs in the PL make an operating profit. If you want to compete you have to borrow or stagger payment (the norm). If you want to be debt free get involved in chess club. which of those other clubs had as much debt as we did ? and how are they treating those finances now ? I thought you knew what you were talking about? still not very good at this WUMmery are you ? no WUM about it when what he says is right. so tell me about these other clubs who have debts similar to our own,making losses and still chasing the dream ? (not too long a go you were using pompey as an example of ambition) I've never said pompey were an ambitious/big club. i never said they were big either, but you did say which to me seems to support the idea of running up their type debt for fleeting success,no sustainability or longer term plan . if only those pompey fans knew what the tragedy of winning the FA Cup was doing to the club. They must yearn for the old days when they were solvent in the 4th division instead. i love the way you do that....only look at the peaks and troughs and nothing in between. maybe if you'd said that they could have looked at a plan of sustainability and building a couple of years a go they wouldn't be looking to sell to survive now (does that ring a bell "live beyond your means then face the consequences" ?) you can't keep on borrowing in the hope of it bringing success without a plan for IF/WHEN the success doesn't happen.

he wants to be debt free for the savings not paying the interest will make. paying up front just means you are more likely to live within your means. He wants to be debt free cause HE STILL WANTS TO SELL THE CLUB. NO OTHER REASON. well there's a newsflash. and in the meantime being debt free lowers the running costs. Being debt free means being unable to compete. as does failing on your gamble to get success by borrowing. you're not very good at this WUMming are you ? You'd need to ask the top 6-8 clubs about that. most operate at a profit which makes it easier to finance debt,those that aren't backed by a sugar daddy that is. (f*** it if we are having to go through where i was with NE5 3 month a go) Actually only 8 clubs in the PL make an operating profit. If you want to compete you have to borrow or stagger payment (the norm). If you want to be debt free get involved in chess club. which of those other clubs had as much debt as we did ? and how are they treating those finances now ? I thought you knew what you were talking about? still not very good at this WUMmery are you ? no WUM about it when what he says is right. so tell me about these other clubs who have debts similar to our own,making losses and still chasing the dream ? (not too long a go you were using pompey as an example of ambition) I've never said pompey were an ambitious/big club. i never said they were big either, but you did say which to me seems to support the idea of running up their type debt for fleeting success,no sustainability or longer term plan .

france look a value bet to win the 6nations (7/1 available). home to wales and should they win they already have ireland out of the way while ireland v wales is the closing game. (fortunatly i am now in a position where should any of those three win i am in profit)

he wants to be debt free for the savings not paying the interest will make. paying up front just means you are more likely to live within your means. He wants to be debt free cause HE STILL WANTS TO SELL THE CLUB. NO OTHER REASON. well there's a newsflash. and in the meantime being debt free lowers the running costs. Being debt free means being unable to compete. as does failing on your gamble to get success by borrowing. you're not very good at this WUMming are you ? You'd need to ask the top 6-8 clubs about that. most operate at a profit which makes it easier to finance debt,those that aren't backed by a sugar daddy that is. (f*** it if we are having to go through where i was with NE5 3 month a go) Actually only 8 clubs in the PL make an operating profit. If you want to compete you have to borrow or stagger payment (the norm). If you want to be debt free get involved in chess club. which of those other clubs had as much debt as we did ? and how are they treating those finances now ? I thought you knew what you were talking about? still not very good at this WUMmery are you ? no WUM about it when what he says is right. so tell me about these other clubs who have debts similar to our own,making losses and still chasing the dream ? (not too long a go you were using pompey as an example of ambition)

he wants to be debt free for the savings not paying the interest will make. paying up front just means you are more likely to live within your means. He wants to be debt free cause HE STILL WANTS TO SELL THE CLUB. NO OTHER REASON. well there's a newsflash. and in the meantime being debt free lowers the running costs. Being debt free means being unable to compete. as does failing on your gamble to get success by borrowing. you're not very good at this WUMming are you ? You'd need to ask the top 6-8 clubs about that. most operate at a profit which makes it easier to finance debt,those that aren't backed by a sugar daddy that is. (f*** it if we are having to go through where i was with NE5 3 month a go) Actually only 8 clubs in the PL make an operating profit. If you want to compete you have to borrow or stagger payment (the norm). If you want to be debt free get involved in chess club. which of those other clubs had as much debt as we did ? and how are they treating those finances now ? I thought you knew what you were talking about? still not very good at this WUMmery are you ? You don't then. NE5 lite isn't going to answer my earlier question then about the debts of others.

he wants to be debt free for the savings not paying the interest will make. paying up front just means you are more likely to live within your means. He wants to be debt free cause HE STILL WANTS TO SELL THE CLUB. NO OTHER REASON. well there's a newsflash. and in the meantime being debt free lowers the running costs. Being debt free means being unable to compete. as does failing on your gamble to get success by borrowing. you're not very good at this WUMming are you ? You'd need to ask the top 6-8 clubs about that. most operate at a profit which makes it easier to finance debt,those that aren't backed by a sugar daddy that is. (f*** it if we are having to go through where i was with NE5 3 month a go) Actually only 8 clubs in the PL make an operating profit. If you want to compete you have to borrow or stagger payment (the norm). If you want to be debt free get involved in chess club. which of those other clubs had as much debt as we did ? and how are they treating those finances now ? I thought you knew what you were talking about? still not very good at this WUMmery are you ?

he wants to be debt free for the savings not paying the interest will make. paying up front just means you are more likely to live within your means. He wants to be debt free cause HE STILL WANTS TO SELL THE CLUB. NO OTHER REASON. well there's a newsflash. and in the meantime being debt free lowers the running costs. Being debt free means being unable to compete. as does failing on your gamble to get success by borrowing. you're not very good at this WUMming are you ? You'd need to ask the top 6-8 clubs about that. most operate at a profit which makes it easier to finance debt,those that aren't backed by a sugar daddy that is. (f*** it if we are having to go through where i was with NE5 3 month a go) Actually only 8 clubs in the PL make an operating profit. If you want to compete you have to borrow or stagger payment (the norm). If you want to be debt free get involved in chess club. which of those other clubs had as much debt as we did ? and how are they treating those finances now ?

he wants to be debt free for the savings not paying the interest will make. paying up front just means you are more likely to live within your means. He wants to be debt free cause HE STILL WANTS TO SELL THE CLUB. NO OTHER REASON. well there's a newsflash. and in the meantime being debt free lowers the running costs. Being debt free means being unable to compete. as does failing on your gamble to get success by borrowing. you're not very good at this WUMming are you ? You'd need to ask the top 6-8 clubs about that. most operate at a profit which makes it easier to finance debt,those that aren't backed by a sugar daddy that is. (fuck it if we are having to go through where i was with NE5 3 month a go)

he wants to be debt free for the savings not paying the interest will make. paying up front just means you are more likely to live within your means. He wants to be debt free cause HE STILL WANTS TO SELL THE CLUB. NO OTHER REASON. well there's a newsflash. and in the meantime being debt free lowers the running costs. Being debt free means being unable to compete. as does failing on your gamble to get success by borrowing. you're not very good at this WUMming are you ?

he wants to be debt free for the savings not paying the interest will make. paying up front just means you are more likely to live within your means. He wants to be debt free cause HE STILL WANTS TO SELL THE CLUB. NO OTHER REASON. well there's a newsflash. and in the meantime being debt free lowers the running costs.

he wants to be debt free for the savings not paying the interest will make. paying up front just means you are more likely to live within your means.

don't think anyones says we have to be totally debt free, in some cases it is better to borrow than use your own funds but having debt levels as they were while running at a loss.....well,something had to change as it was only heading one way. on top of that i'm not sure had fred stayed if we'd have been able to get more credit.

sums up the lop sided view of too many people. hows that ?

the ref not awarding a pen and sending off john barnes when he brought asprilla down at 2-1 in the original 4-3 game.

all i've ever had a go at him for is defending the state the club was in when fred left (and his inability to answer a straight question)

I've answered the point by madras many times. Nobody wants to go into receivership. As for buying players, the next player may be the one who repays his fee and makes a big difference to the team. You have no way of knowing this in advance, apart from those who deal in hindsight and hindsight only. "Are they successful becasue they are in debt or are they coping with debt because they are successful? " THIS comment is nicely phrased, the answer is a bit of both - but the way to go is the same as I've just said. I don't understand why people want us to operate like clubs such as Charlton. They will soon have what they want though, just like when they said we would be better off with a change of owner "no matter who". Shame indi has bowed out - for now - as he can make some decent points even if I don't agree. The reason for "childishness" if you can call it that IMO is brought about by people asking the same things and not understanding the reply. you've never answered my question at all. for those looking in it is "should the club keep on borrowing despite already running at a loss year on year until success or bankruptcy ?" our gamble failed,if we gamble and lose too often (like we did) we end up in the shit (like wea are)

don't think anyones gonna bite this time I should hope not, but I'm sure someone will call it mediocrity. you're better than that (only slightly mind )

nowt to say then ? Just joking man, I'm pretty bored, we all know spending money improves your chances of doing well, but it's not a given, you need the right manager, the right scouts and the right amount of money but you can do well without spending massive amount if you have the right manager e.g. Moyes and Everton. on the other hand, if you are lucky enough to get a decent manager, and it IS a lottery, and don't back him, he'll be off. Like Moyes, unless Everton are taken over or it all suddenly goes tits up for him. When you say "do well", how well do YOU want to do ? It's a lottery getting a good manager? No it's a skill, not an easy one but it is definately a skill. is it now ? We'll see how easily Arsenal replace Wenger and ManU replace Ferguson. Or Everton replace Moyes .......... Even a "good manager" isn't necessarily the "right manager", which I suppose adds credence to NE5's "lottery" theory. Bit simplistic on the whole though, as usual. you mean "realistic", as usual. Which also, as usual, too many people fail to grasp. were you happy with the kinnear appointment ? hey getting a good manager is a lottery right,surely theres as much chance getting a s*** one to turn out good results as there is a good one turning out bad to your thinking or maybe you are piffling again in anattempt to detect any criticism from the your beloved fred ? (conversly it must work with players aswell...shevchenko,veron,woodgate at real,keane at liverpool......good players who didn't do it so surely it means it's pointless spending big as these players prove it works) i'll stop you in your tracks........."back your manager"............what with ? where was the money going to come from......at this point you mention the debt of others and as always i mention the debt of the top 4 is different to ours as they are making money aside from those with sugar daddies where as we have consistently made losses (not a good scenario when begging to the banks with few assets left to hock). look at the other clubs who,like us have lived beyond their means,they are all cutting right back and ask yourself what liverpools or arsenals spending would be like if they missed out on the champs league for 3 or 4 years ? often on here you have alluded to others having thir heads in the sand but it is clear the one one doing an ostrich is yourself in relation to the position fred left us in. silly. Especially when there are still people hell bent on defending Ashley to the bitter end, and I mean bitter end = relegation and with little chance of coming back. Pleased for you that you still appear to write off all those european qualifications and champions league appearances and the manner in which they were achieved. Still, nobody is "embarrassing us" any more, right ? BORING ! we've covered the euro qualifications to death as that has little to do with the position we were in spring 2007. defending ashley to the bitter end......like you defending fred ? i never mentioned being embarassed by fred's utterences. nice to see you keep your head in the sand re our position when fred left. you mentioned Shepherd, not me, with a silly childish comment. Yep, I will "defend" anybody who gave me the only 15 years out of 45 that tried to compete at the levels this club should always compete at, and thus gave me the best most consistent and highest league positions as a result. As I've said before. Then you should be happy that your season ticket money is going towards paying the bills he racked up in the process. The alternative is of course, only supporting the club when they are winning, as you did when the Halls and Shepherd took over [if you even did that] Was that the Hall/Shepherd era where we were nearly relegated from the 1st division? Or the Hall/Shepherd era where we were finishing 13th in the league despite the big spending? nah, the Hall/Shepherd who took over a club days from bankruptcy, getting 15000 gates and couldn't be sold for 1.25m quid, that became a club filling a 52000 all seater stadium, playing in the champions league, qualifying for europe more than anybody but 4 clubs, and was valued at anything between 100m and 200m quid. I am sorry you feel the need to scorn the big spending that did all of that, what a shame you would have preferred solvency and 2nd division obscurity instead of beating Barcelona and playing in the San Siro. You really are one blinkered old man aren't you. Who said I didn't appreciate the wonderful football we have experienced, but you paint the Hall/Shepherd days with such rose-tinted spectacles. You fail to see what it has cost this club to get these things. You know I wouldn't prefer to be in the 2nd division, but a happy medium of the club not being whored out to pay for the fabulous football we saw would have been nice, do you not think? As for the £100-£200 million quid. Are you happy that Sir John Hall and Fred Shepherd pocketed over £180 million between them when this club was sold, especially since Sir John Hall stood on the steps of St James when he first bought the club and stated he wasn't in it for the money! YEAH RIGHT! oh dear. Resorting to insults. How old are you ? I'm not old you daft bugger, and I'm in good health too. If you don't want to listen to others who have seen things [without meaning to sound patronising] then you really do have a serious problem, and are talking like a naive teenager. I don't believe you saw the mediocrity of the 1970's and 1980's if you think the souness, Roeder and Allardyce league positions were mediocre league positions. Sorry like, but I don't. I believed you at first but your own comments have gave me the impression I now have. I have no idea what makes you think I am happy with money going out of the club. All I have said is that the Halls and Shepherd are by far the best owners we have had in 50 years, in fact, the ONLY good owners in that time. To that extent, they deserved something, for the job they did and the initial risks they took, taking over the club in the state it was in. And don't compare the state of the club in 1991 to now, because believe me, it was miles apart. but we're in the same league position now as we were when shepherd left, so its not the league positions you care about? but how much money we spend? seems weird. I don't ever remember us being in such a relegation scrap under Shepherd's tenure though. point taken, but remember we're always only one or two results away from being out of it (just as much as the opposite is true i understand). but to criticise ashley on current league position while stating that the souness roeder allardyce finishes were not mediocre is hypocritical, whereas to criticise ashley on financial grounds is at best naive and at worst a blatant agenda. I really don't know how many times this has to be said. A board that backs their manager and shows ambition will always be better than one who choose not to. i agree, however i feel thats over simplifying the issue somewhat, dont you? in light of the clubs current financial status? You mean seeing 2 of our best players, one of whom has been a fabric of the club and couldn't wait to get away, and our captain to follow soon, is over-simplifying ? I don't think so. In fact, its frightening. no thats not what i mean because thats not what i said. i dont really think thats relevant to backing the manager? as it opens a whole load of other issues regarding whether jfk wanted given and n'zogbia to stay, what the club did to keep them etc, so lets not side track. i agree with you that boards should back their managers financially, but given the clubs finances at present, how should the board be providing more than they currently are? I'm not sure either, but maybe Shay Given could shed some light on it ? As well as Keegan and Owen ? Don't you find their actions tell you something ? i reckon they'd tell you they left cos the club aint going to be challenging anytime soon (and i would say it it was down to the financial mess we are in) you would say we should have kept on borrowing to keep these players ,cross your fingers and hope we find success before the banks say "no" or "err can we have our money back please" I understand what you and the others are saying. You wish we hadnt' played in the Champions League rather than aim for a relegation and solvency, and you think every club except us is successful, always appoint the right man, and make profits at the same time oh we know that trick,the one where you try to make out someone said something they didn't. what i am saying (and you well know it) is that after dropping out the champs league you can gamble a bit to get back in,but if you fail and you keep on gambling and failing.....you end up like all other gamblers who fail. still awaiting your answer by the way of where the money would come from year on year when making losses year on year and do you understand that you can't keep borrowing for ever. Simple difference is, I don't believe Ashley has a clue about football, or how to succeed, nor the desire to do what it takes even if this belief is incorrect. Whereas I have no doubt whatsoever that the Halls and Shepherd would have re-grouped and had another go, and probably had some success too. do you feel you can draw a fair comparison at this point? given that ashley has only had the club for a small fraction of time compared to the last lot? the challenges he faces are different to the ones they faced when taking over, wouldnt you say? Aye, Ashley is in a far better position. In some ways and in other ways not. The club is in far superior position now than it was in the early 90's. It's true that there are loads of things that are better about the club and the situation it finds itself in now than in the early 90s: Bigger, better SJP; better league position; better squad; higher profile; larger crowds; more TV money; more revenue full-stop; improved training facilities; and so-on. However there are a number of things about the club and the current situation that are worse: Bigger debt; higher supporter expectations (therefore increased demand for success, less patience, etc); huge wage bill; players are much more powerful when it comes to contracts, etc meaning it is harder to get rid of players you don't want and bring in players you do; hugely inflated transfer fees and player wages; bigger, stronger opposition, some with money's-no-object budgets; much less room for improvement, especially relative improvement compared to other Premiership clubs; the global "Credit Crunch"; a somewhat tarnished reputation; less obvious ways of improving things, and so-on. So, I don't think it's true that Ashley's in a far better position, some things are better, others are worse, which is easier or more difficult is hard to judge, the problems are different, but there are still problems. not a single thing is worse than in 1991. Nothing. Would you like offer some evidence or arguments to refute the points I made then? Because without that your statement has no validity. you've listed all the improvements yourself ! What else is there ? You can't call expectations and the other things you have listed as "worse" when they are all by-products of the huge improvements and comparative success ? The only thing I would pick out is "tarnished repuation", but to be honest, even that is nowhere near the appalling standing the club had in 1991. I asked you about the problems not the improvements, so will you address the ones I've highlighted below, please: I don't get you, as I said, most of them are by products of being more successul. Players being more powerful is a football problem, including transfer fees and wages. Do you think differently ? But as a football club, football's problems are our problems, are they not? When the Halls and Shepherd took over they had to deal with the external conditions also. Ashley did not take over a perfect club in a perfect market, did he. Therefore there were problems and issues that needed (and still need) to be dealt with, something you seem to be denying. As I said, the problems may not be the same, but there are still problems. To deny that is to deny the obvious and it only takes away from the valid points of your argument. I'm not denying anything. I can't see how you think we or anybody can address bigger issue football wide problems, unless you are advocating a maverick approach, and who is going to do that and run the risk of abject failure, because you must realise that if the big clubs adopt a hard line approach to wages, contracts, etc, the player will just go somewhere else. To slightly move this debate further, I don't know if it is possible to do anything about this, but in the UK at least, nothing would happen without the PFA urging its big hitters to exercise restraint - what I have in mind here is a wage cap of sorts where they would agree to donate money into a pool to look after football[ers] and therefore clubs further down the ladders ? Can't see it happening personally though. BUMP I answered him. Again Does he agree or not, and why i'll answer......... take a look. more and more clubds are having to do that. we took our risk with our bit cash and failed,the risk didn't pay off and we are now at a point where we have to live with it........which other clubs who are making a yearly loss are going on spending sprees ? what are you blabbing on about ? You show me a successful club anywhere in the world who isn;t in debt been here.....don't you remember ? having debt is one thing,losing money all the time and building more debt is another..........ie they can afford to finance their debt, you know this already

nowt to say then ? Just joking man, I'm pretty bored, we all know spending money improves your chances of doing well, but it's not a given, you need the right manager, the right scouts and the right amount of money but you can do well without spending massive amount if you have the right manager e.g. Moyes and Everton. on the other hand, if you are lucky enough to get a decent manager, and it IS a lottery, and don't back him, he'll be off. Like Moyes, unless Everton are taken over or it all suddenly goes tits up for him. When you say "do well", how well do YOU want to do ? It's a lottery getting a good manager? No it's a skill, not an easy one but it is definately a skill. is it now ? We'll see how easily Arsenal replace Wenger and ManU replace Ferguson. Or Everton replace Moyes .......... Even a "good manager" isn't necessarily the "right manager", which I suppose adds credence to NE5's "lottery" theory. Bit simplistic on the whole though, as usual. you mean "realistic", as usual. Which also, as usual, too many people fail to grasp. were you happy with the kinnear appointment ? hey getting a good manager is a lottery right,surely theres as much chance getting a s*** one to turn out good results as there is a good one turning out bad to your thinking or maybe you are piffling again in anattempt to detect any criticism from the your beloved fred ? (conversly it must work with players aswell...shevchenko,veron,woodgate at real,keane at liverpool......good players who didn't do it so surely it means it's pointless spending big as these players prove it works) i'll stop you in your tracks........."back your manager"............what with ? where was the money going to come from......at this point you mention the debt of others and as always i mention the debt of the top 4 is different to ours as they are making money aside from those with sugar daddies where as we have consistently made losses (not a good scenario when begging to the banks with few assets left to hock). look at the other clubs who,like us have lived beyond their means,they are all cutting right back and ask yourself what liverpools or arsenals spending would be like if they missed out on the champs league for 3 or 4 years ? often on here you have alluded to others having thir heads in the sand but it is clear the one one doing an ostrich is yourself in relation to the position fred left us in. silly. Especially when there are still people hell bent on defending Ashley to the bitter end, and I mean bitter end = relegation and with little chance of coming back. Pleased for you that you still appear to write off all those european qualifications and champions league appearances and the manner in which they were achieved. Still, nobody is "embarrassing us" any more, right ? BORING ! we've covered the euro qualifications to death as that has little to do with the position we were in spring 2007. defending ashley to the bitter end......like you defending fred ? i never mentioned being embarassed by fred's utterences. nice to see you keep your head in the sand re our position when fred left. you mentioned Shepherd, not me, with a silly childish comment. Yep, I will "defend" anybody who gave me the only 15 years out of 45 that tried to compete at the levels this club should always compete at, and thus gave me the best most consistent and highest league positions as a result. As I've said before. Then you should be happy that your season ticket money is going towards paying the bills he racked up in the process. The alternative is of course, only supporting the club when they are winning, as you did when the Halls and Shepherd took over [if you even did that] Was that the Hall/Shepherd era where we were nearly relegated from the 1st division? Or the Hall/Shepherd era where we were finishing 13th in the league despite the big spending? nah, the Hall/Shepherd who took over a club days from bankruptcy, getting 15000 gates and couldn't be sold for 1.25m quid, that became a club filling a 52000 all seater stadium, playing in the champions league, qualifying for europe more than anybody but 4 clubs, and was valued at anything between 100m and 200m quid. I am sorry you feel the need to scorn the big spending that did all of that, what a shame you would have preferred solvency and 2nd division obscurity instead of beating Barcelona and playing in the San Siro. You really are one blinkered old man aren't you. Who said I didn't appreciate the wonderful football we have experienced, but you paint the Hall/Shepherd days with such rose-tinted spectacles. You fail to see what it has cost this club to get these things. You know I wouldn't prefer to be in the 2nd division, but a happy medium of the club not being whored out to pay for the fabulous football we saw would have been nice, do you not think? As for the £100-£200 million quid. Are you happy that Sir John Hall and Fred Shepherd pocketed over £180 million between them when this club was sold, especially since Sir John Hall stood on the steps of St James when he first bought the club and stated he wasn't in it for the money! YEAH RIGHT! oh dear. Resorting to insults. How old are you ? I'm not old you daft bugger, and I'm in good health too. If you don't want to listen to others who have seen things [without meaning to sound patronising] then you really do have a serious problem, and are talking like a naive teenager. I don't believe you saw the mediocrity of the 1970's and 1980's if you think the souness, Roeder and Allardyce league positions were mediocre league positions. Sorry like, but I don't. I believed you at first but your own comments have gave me the impression I now have. I have no idea what makes you think I am happy with money going out of the club. All I have said is that the Halls and Shepherd are by far the best owners we have had in 50 years, in fact, the ONLY good owners in that time. To that extent, they deserved something, for the job they did and the initial risks they took, taking over the club in the state it was in. And don't compare the state of the club in 1991 to now, because believe me, it was miles apart. but we're in the same league position now as we were when shepherd left, so its not the league positions you care about? but how much money we spend? seems weird. I don't ever remember us being in such a relegation scrap under Shepherd's tenure though. point taken, but remember we're always only one or two results away from being out of it (just as much as the opposite is true i understand). but to criticise ashley on current league position while stating that the souness roeder allardyce finishes were not mediocre is hypocritical, whereas to criticise ashley on financial grounds is at best naive and at worst a blatant agenda. I really don't know how many times this has to be said. A board that backs their manager and shows ambition will always be better than one who choose not to. i agree, however i feel thats over simplifying the issue somewhat, dont you? in light of the clubs current financial status? You mean seeing 2 of our best players, one of whom has been a fabric of the club and couldn't wait to get away, and our captain to follow soon, is over-simplifying ? I don't think so. In fact, its frightening. no thats not what i mean because thats not what i said. i dont really think thats relevant to backing the manager? as it opens a whole load of other issues regarding whether jfk wanted given and n'zogbia to stay, what the club did to keep them etc, so lets not side track. i agree with you that boards should back their managers financially, but given the clubs finances at present, how should the board be providing more than they currently are? I'm not sure either, but maybe Shay Given could shed some light on it ? As well as Keegan and Owen ? Don't you find their actions tell you something ? i reckon they'd tell you they left cos the club aint going to be challenging anytime soon (and i would say it it was down to the financial mess we are in) you would say we should have kept on borrowing to keep these players ,cross your fingers and hope we find success before the banks say "no" or "err can we have our money back please" I understand what you and the others are saying. You wish we hadnt' played in the Champions League rather than aim for a relegation and solvency, and you think every club except us is successful, always appoint the right man, and make profits at the same time oh we know that trick,the one where you try to make out someone said something they didn't. what i am saying (and you well know it) is that after dropping out the champs league you can gamble a bit to get back in,but if you fail and you keep on gambling and failing.....you end up like all other gamblers who fail. still awaiting your answer by the way of where the money would come from year on year when making losses year on year and do you understand that you can't keep borrowing for ever. Simple difference is, I don't believe Ashley has a clue about football, or how to succeed, nor the desire to do what it takes even if this belief is incorrect. Whereas I have no doubt whatsoever that the Halls and Shepherd would have re-grouped and had another go, and probably had some success too. do you feel you can draw a fair comparison at this point? given that ashley has only had the club for a small fraction of time compared to the last lot? the challenges he faces are different to the ones they faced when taking over, wouldnt you say? Aye, Ashley is in a far better position. In some ways and in other ways not. The club is in far superior position now than it was in the early 90's. It's true that there are loads of things that are better about the club and the situation it finds itself in now than in the early 90s: Bigger, better SJP; better league position; better squad; higher profile; larger crowds; more TV money; more revenue full-stop; improved training facilities; and so-on. However there are a number of things about the club and the current situation that are worse: Bigger debt; higher supporter expectations (therefore increased demand for success, less patience, etc); huge wage bill; players are much more powerful when it comes to contracts, etc meaning it is harder to get rid of players you don't want and bring in players you do; hugely inflated transfer fees and player wages; bigger, stronger opposition, some with money's-no-object budgets; much less room for improvement, especially relative improvement compared to other Premiership clubs; the global "Credit Crunch"; a somewhat tarnished reputation; less obvious ways of improving things, and so-on. So, I don't think it's true that Ashley's in a far better position, some things are better, others are worse, which is easier or more difficult is hard to judge, the problems are different, but there are still problems. not a single thing is worse than in 1991. Nothing. Would you like offer some evidence or arguments to refute the points I made then? Because without that your statement has no validity. you've listed all the improvements yourself ! What else is there ? You can't call expectations and the other things you have listed as "worse" when they are all by-products of the huge improvements and comparative success ? The only thing I would pick out is "tarnished repuation", but to be honest, even that is nowhere near the appalling standing the club had in 1991. I asked you about the problems not the improvements, so will you address the ones I've highlighted below, please: I don't get you, as I said, most of them are by products of being more successul. Players being more powerful is a football problem, including transfer fees and wages. Do you think differently ? But as a football club, football's problems are our problems, are they not? When the Halls and Shepherd took over they had to deal with the external conditions also. Ashley did not take over a perfect club in a perfect market, did he. Therefore there were problems and issues that needed (and still need) to be dealt with, something you seem to be denying. As I said, the problems may not be the same, but there are still problems. To deny that is to deny the obvious and it only takes away from the valid points of your argument. I'm not denying anything. I can't see how you think we or anybody can address bigger issue football wide problems, unless you are advocating a maverick approach, and who is going to do that and run the risk of abject failure, because you must realise that if the big clubs adopt a hard line approach to wages, contracts, etc, the player will just go somewhere else. To slightly move this debate further, I don't know if it is possible to do anything about this, but in the UK at least, nothing would happen without the PFA urging its big hitters to exercise restraint - what I have in mind here is a wage cap of sorts where they would agree to donate money into a pool to look after football[ers] and therefore clubs further down the ladders ? Can't see it happening personally though. BUMP I answered him. Again Does he agree or not, and why i'll answer......... take a look. more and more clubds are having to do that. we took our risk with our bit cash and failed,the risk didn't pay off and we are now at a point where we have to live with it........which other clubs who are making a yearly loss are going on spending sprees ?

So it was only those two positions? Here's me thinking that we also had 13th, 13th, 11th and 11th, 4 years running, my mistake. under souness, Roeder and Allardyce, we finished 14th, 7th, and 13th. I thought you said you knew about the club mackems.gif Please tell everyone how often we finished as high as 7th between 1960 and 1992 ? Or even 14th [our lowest position under the Halls and Shepherd] in those 32 years ? You would just love to prove me wrong wouldn't you, but you won't correct yourself here, because you can't mackems.gif as one or two people have said I don't answer questions, and have disputed the FACT that what I say is backed up factual date. - they are free to ask ask again if I've missed them - BUMP you wont answer my question but instead of derailing yet another thread why not pop into the ne5 v the world thread to do it ?