madras

Grim reading alround. If there is one player this club and the current plight deserves its David James. I would rather bring Mike Hooper back. i wouldn't and you're lying.

johnson in goal ? i'd like to think if given goes ,harper would commit. Hilarity prevails? We don't need another keeper in my opinion but we would be panicking if Harper got injured (as no doubt knowing our luck he probably would) after we had sold Shay. yeah but it would mean first choice is taken. then look at krul as back up or at least time to get one.

johnson in goal ? i'd like to think if given goes ,harper would commit.

I dont know how old you are but i am 45 and KK has walked out twice on us and dropped us in the s*** both times and that is why he gets stick for it . someone else older than me.

You don't need to but you can't tell me that you enjoyed going down, I can't think of anything which has got close to it for being as bad, not football related anyway. no i didn't enjoy relegation (as opposed to your very gay "going down") but facts are that i enjoyed certain tiomes when we were down there. i'm a grown up, it's not the biggest thing in the world, it won't drive me to contemplate my life, i've been there before and survived while having a giggle or two.

Going down would be an absolute nightmare, I've been through it and it's about as bad as it gets. 2 of my most enjoyable seasons following NUFC wetre outside the top flight. don't want to go there but i will if necessary.

something to blow your socks off.

i understand you, don't agree but i understand you. i will not be paying back my discount (before feb 1st) and cancelling next years season ticket.

Why would us making a profit on him mean he would be one of the first to go? Because it's easy money. Money we need now, never mind if we were relegated. So it's because he's worth more money then rather than us making a profit on him. Glad we cleared that one up. In a nutshell Ashley is trying to trouser as much wedge as poss out of the club to try and recoup his investment before riding off into the sunset, so if he gets wind of Bassong or a particular player being worth a fairly large sum he’ll plonk a ‘For Sale’ sign over their head without batting an eyelid or even considering the interests of our club. If we do go down he’ll have the ideal excuse for flogging all and sundry - OK the club valuation if we’re in the Championship and after such a clear-out will be vastly reduced but for a guy worth that much even taking a hit of say £ 100m is relatively small beer (ie 5% if he’s worth 2 billion). And when people say that his business reputation is tarnished or even finished he can justify the failure by saying that football wasn’t his bag and he can return to flogging tat made in sweatshops to the masses. He’d probably be secretly chuffed to have got one over the supporters who he perceives as having slighted/insulted him and his family and won’t lose any sleep about leaving the club in a parlous state, cut adrift and heading for a wilderness period a la Sheff Wednesday. He may be in a for a shock when certain players say that they want to stay but this feigning of loyalty will simply hide the fact that they want to stay cos they’re on such a good whack here! Until he actually re-engages in a dialogue with the supporters and splashes some cash to ensure we stay up I can’t help but have what many may consider an overly cynical viewpoint. I obviously hope I’m way off the mark but even a govt minister could not see any green shoots at SJP at the moment! if that were true they'd have been sold alrerady (fire sale) as opposed to holding out for better prices.

That is just as valid a comment for those who thinks he's got plenty to spend. I think having a debate about a strategy over 4 or 5 years if he is committed to staying is one thing. What worries people like me, FS and a couple of others is that there seems an unwillingness from his pov to address this window/season and for those who seem to defend him in this thread to think about the here and now. How much he was willing to spend last summer or next summer are worthwhile topics imo - I think asking for funds for emergency plumbing for a f*** off hole in the living room ceiling shouldn't attract too much criticism. Personally I don’t care if he has to sell his house to buy a new left back. It was his decision to take on all the responsibility that comes with running a football club. I’m not interested in his sob stories, or how many times he’s seen Maradona play. The supporters and the team are the most important parts of any football club. Mr Ashley is neglecting both. would you give all your money to nufc ? No, but if I only had a personal fortune of £800m I wouldn’t have bought them. What if your personal fortune was nearly £2bn? "was" being very much the word.

That is just as valid a comment for those who thinks he's got plenty to spend. I think having a debate about a strategy over 4 or 5 years if he is committed to staying is one thing. What worries people like me, FS and a couple of others is that there seems an unwillingness from his pov to address this window/season and for those who seem to defend him in this thread to think about the here and now. How much he was willing to spend last summer or next summer are worthwhile topics imo - I think asking for funds for emergency plumbing for a f*** off hole in the living room ceiling shouldn't attract too much criticism. Personally I don’t care if he has to sell his house to buy a new left back. It was his decision to take on all the responsibility that comes with running a football club. I’m not interested in his sob stories, or how many times he’s seen Maradona play. The supporters and the team are the most important parts of any football club. Mr Ashley is neglecting both. would you give all your money to nufc ? No, but if I only had a personal fortune of £800m I wouldn’t have bought them. you'd rather have left it in freddies hands eh ? i wonder if he'd have been able to persuade earnst and young that he had enough to guarantee the business ?

That is just as valid a comment for those who thinks he's got plenty to spend. I think having a debate about a strategy over 4 or 5 years if he is committed to staying is one thing. What worries people like me, FS and a couple of others is that there seems an unwillingness from his pov to address this window/season and for those who seem to defend him in this thread to think about the here and now. How much he was willing to spend last summer or next summer are worthwhile topics imo - I think asking for funds for emergency plumbing for a f*** off hole in the living room ceiling shouldn't attract too much criticism. Personally I don’t care if he has to sell his house to buy a new left back. It was his decision to take on all the responsibility that comes with running a football club. I’m not interested in his sob stories, or how many times he’s seen Maradona play. The supporters and the team are the most important parts of any football club. Mr Ashley is neglecting both. would you give all your money to nufc ?

According to the accounts he loaned the club £100 million then added another £10 million. So on top of the £110m he's pumped into the club - how much should he provide in terms of transfer funds, hypothetically spekaing of course? (Assuming of course that he does have £600m just sitting in his bank account) Keep your hair on As Ive already said. £25-30m this summer would have done the trick. The squad Keegan inherited contained some quality but lacked balance and confidence, but by the end of the season were playing good football and winning games. If Kev had been allowed to bring in a left back and central midfielder of his choice the squad would have been a lot stronger, and he would have probably accepted the arrival of Xisco and not fallen out with the cockney mafia. For £25m Ashley could have had stability, unity and a squad capable of finishing comfortably in the top half. The extra money from a higher league placing could be worth £3-4m, the longer runs in the cup another £3-4m, sneaking a UEFA cup place another £2-3m, the better attendances next season £5-10m. It might not have worked out exactly like that but its wrong to say spending nowt and hoping for the best is the only way to respond to NUFCs financial problem. An extra £10m-15m extra for Fat Sam to spend might have been the best option. Hes got a proven record of doing a good job on a shoestring, perhaps an extra £10m would have got him Curtis David instead of Rosenthal for example. As it was Ashley decided to spend £5m sacking him. Or Jo instead of Xisco of course? or indeed another alan smith or joey barton

According to the accounts he loaned the club £100 million then added another £10 million. So on top of the £110m he's pumped into the club - how much should he provide in terms of transfer funds, hypothetically spekaing of course? (Assuming of course that he does have £600m just sitting in his bank account) Keep your hair on As I’ve already said…. £25-30m this summer would have done the trick. The squad Keegan inherited contained some quality but lacked balance and confidence, but by the end of the season were playing good football and winning games. If Kev had been allowed to bring in a left back and central midfielder of his choice the squad would have been a lot stronger, and he would have probably accepted the arrival of Xisco and not fallen out with the cockney mafia. For £25m Ashley could have had stability, unity and a squad capable of finishing comfortably in the top half. The extra money from a higher league placing could be worth £3-4m, the longer runs in the cup another £3-4m, sneaking a UEFA cup place another £2-3m, the better attendances next season £5-10m. It might not have worked out exactly like that but it’s wrong to say spending nowt and hoping for the best is the only way to respond to NUFC’s financial problem. An extra £10m-15m extra for Fat Sam to spend might have been the best option. He’s got a proven record of doing a good job on a shoestring, perhaps an extra £10m would have got him Curtis David instead of Rosenthal for example. As it was Ashley decided to spend £5m sacking him. Theres just far too much of that to digest. So you'd carry on adding to the wage bill? And what about the debt and interest payments? You'd leave them unaddressed? What about the jan period and the followign summer? How much money are you willing to give? What about the summer after that? When does the debt get addressed? What if we dont do great and struggle like we're dong now? Then what? Do you carry on reivinvestment with no contingency plan? errrr...........ehm....errrr....back your manager

It's quite obvious what they (as in people who aren't you or NE5, that said your posts seem to mesh together anyway) are getting at, and it's completely fair and doesn't take much or anything away from their criticism of Ashley. Hindsight. Almost on a par with mandiarse.....but not quite. You show me one poster who said at the time we were playing in the san siro etc that we shouldn't have bought those players that took us there rather than run a solvent business ? You will also find the same posters, for the most part, frothing over at the fat b****** for not buying more players and "splashing the cash" whenever we lost a game or two. i'll show you plenty who said it when we bought luque etc. as i've already posted the position we were in then is vastly different to the position fred left us in......i'll spell it out for you. borrowing money when you have small debts and a sustaining business plan is ok, in some circumstances it is even preferable to raising cash in other ways. borrowing year on year whan you have very high debt to turnover and have no business plan excepet to hope you become succesful is mindless. why do you constantly cherry pick the highpoints and ignore the position we were left in ? I'm not talking about Luque, you are cherry picking a bad signing as being indicative of the clubs whole philisophy. In actual fact, most people said that Luque was a good player/should have a chance. Not too many people agreed with me when I said that he was s**** the first time I saw him. You have to accept that some players don;t work , or are poor buys, but you can't accept this in the same way as you also completely unrealistically can't accept that we don't appoint the right manager every time. In fact, in the last 4 years ie since Bobby Robson, only 5 clubs have had trophy winning managers. Do you still think everybody apart from us has appointed good managers in the last 4 years ? Why do you ignore the previous 12 years before that ? Fact is, as I've told you, they have been held accountable, they have gone, are you happy with the outcome or not ? no. what i was pointing out was the timing, it came at a time when we weren't doing well and as many pointed out was vastly overpriced. i do not ignore the previous 12 years.you know this,i've said they done well but they stopped doing well and didn't seem to me and others as if they were going to turn it round. now again...i've asked you a few times and am yet to receive an answer......if you keep building debts year on year while being unsuccesful on the field and off...do you keep on going with that tactic until the banks call a halt ? am i happy with the outcome.....could've been better but i'd rather what we have than what i envisage would have happened had it not changed. you wanted rid of a board who backed their managers and had ambition, and they have been replaced by someone who won't back his managers. A good manager, backed by his board, will turn the club around, a good manager not backed by his board will move on and so you have no hope. It isn't "tactic", its having someone with the outlook to succeed, getting rid of them for someone who doesn't back their managers is like getting rid of a good goalscorer just because he has a bad run and replacing him with someone who will never be as prolific. No sense. As you have said, the change has been made, and thats what we have got. Maybe next time, people will appreciate when we have a good board of directors, but I doubt it. We wouldn't have gone into administration, but we certainly could if we are relegated and the crowds dive to what they did for years before 1992. As they nearly did. But nobody above the hard core 15-20000 supporters really cared. As I said to fredbob, what is the way forward ? Do you think its cost cutting, relegation, and half the crowds as a result ? so you do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ? do you really think we are the only club with debts ? Was that a yes or a no? are you madras or are you trying to derail the thread ? Do you think we should have taken Mike Ashleys direction, back in 2001, as UV has asked, rather than have those champions league runs etc ? no we aren't the onlu club with debts. we are one of a group of clubs whose debts have reached a level that aren't sustainable and action is needed before it's too late. in 2001 had we spent all of the sponsorship money a few years in advaance ? had we hocked everything available ? was our wage bill over 60 % of turn over ? now please answer my original question......do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ? have it your way. We will follow Mikes path, sell our best players, buy bargains from Hartlepool and hope to compete with the other big boys. As UV has also said, what a shame we didn't have soopa mike instead of the fat b******, we would have had a solvent club in the championship instead of playing in the San Siro and you would have been wetting your knicks at having a solvent club. Have you ever heard of the phrase "if you don;t take a shot you won't score a goal" ? answer my question please. I've answered it, and unlike some of the numpties, I suspect you know exactly what I mean so stop pretending you don't can you provide a link to the answer you gave,i'm not taking the mick. (no pun intended) Back your managers and you have a chance, we got there in the first place through doing just that. Choosing not to back your managers and compete at the level of the likes of Bristol City will leave you, eeeerrr, .......... well work it out. I;ve said this on numerous occasions, there are too many links. I'm sure baggy will find one if you can't be arsed. so you didn't really answer my question did you ?. i asked ........"do you think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?" I've told you. You're completely unrealistic. NE5, i'm with you on a few things you say but you've lost it here big time... Long standing debate, this one. We have stopped spending money now, and look where its taking us. See my previous post. How much of the banks money are Liverpool etc using ? Would you prefer a mid table, bottom half club, taking no risks and staying solvent to competing at the top end and filling the stadium and marketing the club like a top club ? My answer, is give me a board who show ambition and are prepared to have a crack at it anyday to one that settles for safe obscurity. liverpools debt may be guaranteed by their owners as ours are by ashley...i don't think fred could have guaranteed that ammount. you haven't directly answered the question........do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ? all you say is you'll not get anywhere without spending which doesn't in any way answer my question about nhow long you keep on borrowing for. i have done you the service of answering you directly in the past,please accord me the same. its a completely hypothetical question. You don't think you are going to go bankrupt do you ? You don't deliberately appoint a manager you think will make bad judgements ? So, as I said, give me a board who will have a crack at aiming for the top places, which we should be doing, rather than one that is afraid of it and opts for bottom of the table safety and solvency. As Ashley has taken that route, the results are there for you to see. so do you keep on borrowing no matter how long it takes to bring success ? you have to aim for success, if you doubt that, wait and see where Ashleys penny pinching and lack of ambition gets us. Season ticket sales next year will be your first indication, especially if we are relegated. thats not what i asked....i asked "so do you keep on borrowing no matter how long it takes to bring success ?" (i'll give you my answer if you want..here goes........it's ok to borrow to chase the dream for a while(which we did and rightly so),from a position of low debt and well structured (which it was,well done shepherd and halls to this point) but when you do it so long that debts are almost half the value of the company,wages alone count for over 60% of that turnover and the company isn't actualy generating any surplus cash............then it's time to look at other ways as keeping going is gonna kill you)

It's quite obvious what they (as in people who aren't you or NE5, that said your posts seem to mesh together anyway) are getting at, and it's completely fair and doesn't take much or anything away from their criticism of Ashley. Hindsight. Almost on a par with mandiarse.....but not quite. You show me one poster who said at the time we were playing in the san siro etc that we shouldn't have bought those players that took us there rather than run a solvent business ? You will also find the same posters, for the most part, frothing over at the fat b****** for not buying more players and "splashing the cash" whenever we lost a game or two. i'll show you plenty who said it when we bought luque etc. as i've already posted the position we were in then is vastly different to the position fred left us in......i'll spell it out for you. borrowing money when you have small debts and a sustaining business plan is ok, in some circumstances it is even preferable to raising cash in other ways. borrowing year on year whan you have very high debt to turnover and have no business plan excepet to hope you become succesful is mindless. why do you constantly cherry pick the highpoints and ignore the position we were left in ? I'm not talking about Luque, you are cherry picking a bad signing as being indicative of the clubs whole philisophy. In actual fact, most people said that Luque was a good player/should have a chance. Not too many people agreed with me when I said that he was s**** the first time I saw him. You have to accept that some players don;t work , or are poor buys, but you can't accept this in the same way as you also completely unrealistically can't accept that we don't appoint the right manager every time. In fact, in the last 4 years ie since Bobby Robson, only 5 clubs have had trophy winning managers. Do you still think everybody apart from us has appointed good managers in the last 4 years ? Why do you ignore the previous 12 years before that ? Fact is, as I've told you, they have been held accountable, they have gone, are you happy with the outcome or not ? no. what i was pointing out was the timing, it came at a time when we weren't doing well and as many pointed out was vastly overpriced. i do not ignore the previous 12 years.you know this,i've said they done well but they stopped doing well and didn't seem to me and others as if they were going to turn it round. now again...i've asked you a few times and am yet to receive an answer......if you keep building debts year on year while being unsuccesful on the field and off...do you keep on going with that tactic until the banks call a halt ? am i happy with the outcome.....could've been better but i'd rather what we have than what i envisage would have happened had it not changed. you wanted rid of a board who backed their managers and had ambition, and they have been replaced by someone who won't back his managers. A good manager, backed by his board, will turn the club around, a good manager not backed by his board will move on and so you have no hope. It isn't "tactic", its having someone with the outlook to succeed, getting rid of them for someone who doesn't back their managers is like getting rid of a good goalscorer just because he has a bad run and replacing him with someone who will never be as prolific. No sense. As you have said, the change has been made, and thats what we have got. Maybe next time, people will appreciate when we have a good board of directors, but I doubt it. We wouldn't have gone into administration, but we certainly could if we are relegated and the crowds dive to what they did for years before 1992. As they nearly did. But nobody above the hard core 15-20000 supporters really cared. As I said to fredbob, what is the way forward ? Do you think its cost cutting, relegation, and half the crowds as a result ? so you do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ? do you really think we are the only club with debts ? Was that a yes or a no? are you madras or are you trying to derail the thread ? Do you think we should have taken Mike Ashleys direction, back in 2001, as UV has asked, rather than have those champions league runs etc ? no we aren't the onlu club with debts. we are one of a group of clubs whose debts have reached a level that aren't sustainable and action is needed before it's too late. in 2001 had we spent all of the sponsorship money a few years in advaance ? had we hocked everything available ? was our wage bill over 60 % of turn over ? now please answer my original question......do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ? have it your way. We will follow Mikes path, sell our best players, buy bargains from Hartlepool and hope to compete with the other big boys. As UV has also said, what a shame we didn't have soopa mike instead of the fat b******, we would have had a solvent club in the championship instead of playing in the San Siro and you would have been wetting your knicks at having a solvent club. Have you ever heard of the phrase "if you don;t take a shot you won't score a goal" ? answer my question please. I've answered it, and unlike some of the numpties, I suspect you know exactly what I mean so stop pretending you don't can you provide a link to the answer you gave,i'm not taking the mick. (no pun intended) Back your managers and you have a chance, we got there in the first place through doing just that. Choosing not to back your managers and compete at the level of the likes of Bristol City will leave you, eeeerrr, .......... well work it out. I;ve said this on numerous occasions, there are too many links. I'm sure baggy will find one if you can't be arsed. so you didn't really answer my question did you ?. i asked ........"do you think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?" I've told you. You're completely unrealistic. NE5, i'm with you on a few things you say but you've lost it here big time... Long standing debate, this one. We have stopped spending money now, and look where its taking us. See my previous post. How much of the banks money are Liverpool etc using ? Would you prefer a mid table, bottom half club, taking no risks and staying solvent to competing at the top end and filling the stadium and marketing the club like a top club ? My answer, is give me a board who show ambition and are prepared to have a crack at it anyday to one that settles for safe obscurity. liverpools debt may be guaranteed by their owners as ours are by ashley...i don't think fred could have guaranteed that ammount. you haven't directly answered the question........do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ? all you say is you'll not get anywhere without spending which doesn't in any way answer my question about nhow long you keep on borrowing for. i have done you the service of answering you directly in the past,please accord me the same. its a completely hypothetical question. You don't think you are going to go bankrupt do you ? You don't deliberately appoint a manager you think will make bad judgements ? So, as I said, give me a board who will have a crack at aiming for the top places, which we should be doing, rather than one that is afraid of it and opts for bottom of the table safety and solvency. As Ashley has taken that route, the results are there for you to see. so do you keep on borrowing no matter how long it takes to bring success ?

and none of them worth listening to.

wycombe again...the fucking bastards

It's quite obvious what they (as in people who aren't you or NE5, that said your posts seem to mesh together anyway) are getting at, and it's completely fair and doesn't take much or anything away from their criticism of Ashley. Hindsight. Almost on a par with mandiarse.....but not quite. You show me one poster who said at the time we were playing in the san siro etc that we shouldn't have bought those players that took us there rather than run a solvent business ? You will also find the same posters, for the most part, frothing over at the fat b****** for not buying more players and "splashing the cash" whenever we lost a game or two. i'll show you plenty who said it when we bought luque etc. as i've already posted the position we were in then is vastly different to the position fred left us in......i'll spell it out for you. borrowing money when you have small debts and a sustaining business plan is ok, in some circumstances it is even preferable to raising cash in other ways. borrowing year on year whan you have very high debt to turnover and have no business plan excepet to hope you become succesful is mindless. why do you constantly cherry pick the highpoints and ignore the position we were left in ? I'm not talking about Luque, you are cherry picking a bad signing as being indicative of the clubs whole philisophy. In actual fact, most people said that Luque was a good player/should have a chance. Not too many people agreed with me when I said that he was s**** the first time I saw him. You have to accept that some players don;t work , or are poor buys, but you can't accept this in the same way as you also completely unrealistically can't accept that we don't appoint the right manager every time. In fact, in the last 4 years ie since Bobby Robson, only 5 clubs have had trophy winning managers. Do you still think everybody apart from us has appointed good managers in the last 4 years ? Why do you ignore the previous 12 years before that ? Fact is, as I've told you, they have been held accountable, they have gone, are you happy with the outcome or not ? no. what i was pointing out was the timing, it came at a time when we weren't doing well and as many pointed out was vastly overpriced. i do not ignore the previous 12 years.you know this,i've said they done well but they stopped doing well and didn't seem to me and others as if they were going to turn it round. now again...i've asked you a few times and am yet to receive an answer......if you keep building debts year on year while being unsuccesful on the field and off...do you keep on going with that tactic until the banks call a halt ? am i happy with the outcome.....could've been better but i'd rather what we have than what i envisage would have happened had it not changed. you wanted rid of a board who backed their managers and had ambition, and they have been replaced by someone who won't back his managers. A good manager, backed by his board, will turn the club around, a good manager not backed by his board will move on and so you have no hope. It isn't "tactic", its having someone with the outlook to succeed, getting rid of them for someone who doesn't back their managers is like getting rid of a good goalscorer just because he has a bad run and replacing him with someone who will never be as prolific. No sense. As you have said, the change has been made, and thats what we have got. Maybe next time, people will appreciate when we have a good board of directors, but I doubt it. We wouldn't have gone into administration, but we certainly could if we are relegated and the crowds dive to what they did for years before 1992. As they nearly did. But nobody above the hard core 15-20000 supporters really cared. As I said to fredbob, what is the way forward ? Do you think its cost cutting, relegation, and half the crowds as a result ? so you do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ? do you really think we are the only club with debts ? Was that a yes or a no? are you madras or are you trying to derail the thread ? Do you think we should have taken Mike Ashleys direction, back in 2001, as UV has asked, rather than have those champions league runs etc ? no we aren't the onlu club with debts. we are one of a group of clubs whose debts have reached a level that aren't sustainable and action is needed before it's too late. in 2001 had we spent all of the sponsorship money a few years in advaance ? had we hocked everything available ? was our wage bill over 60 % of turn over ? now please answer my original question......do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ? have it your way. We will follow Mikes path, sell our best players, buy bargains from Hartlepool and hope to compete with the other big boys. As UV has also said, what a shame we didn't have soopa mike instead of the fat b******, we would have had a solvent club in the championship instead of playing in the San Siro and you would have been wetting your knicks at having a solvent club. Have you ever heard of the phrase "if you don;t take a shot you won't score a goal" ? answer my question please. I've answered it, and unlike some of the numpties, I suspect you know exactly what I mean so stop pretending you don't can you provide a link to the answer you gave,i'm not taking the mick. (no pun intended) Back your managers and you have a chance, we got there in the first place through doing just that. Choosing not to back your managers and compete at the level of the likes of Bristol City will leave you, eeeerrr, .......... well work it out. I;ve said this on numerous occasions, there are too many links. I'm sure baggy will find one if you can't be arsed. so you didn't really answer my question did you ?. i asked ........"do you think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?" I've told you. You're completely unrealistic. NE5, i'm with you on a few things you say but you've lost it here big time... Long standing debate, this one. We have stopped spending money now, and look where its taking us. See my previous post. How much of the banks money are Liverpool etc using ? Would you prefer a mid table, bottom half club, taking no risks and staying solvent to competing at the top end and filling the stadium and marketing the club like a top club ? My answer, is give me a board who show ambition and are prepared to have a crack at it anyday to one that settles for safe obscurity. liverpools debt may be guaranteed by their owners as ours are by ashley...i don't think fred could have guaranteed that ammount. you haven't directly answered the question........do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ? all you say is you'll not get anywhere without spending which doesn't in any way answer my question about nhow long you keep on borrowing for. i have done you the service of answering you directly in the past,please accord me the same.

thers a 4th group..... those who are very happy and thankful for what he done as a player and first time round as a manager but were wary about his 2nd stint. (can 1 person be a group ?)

what If they hadn't gone on a kamikazi spending spree, hoying money about when we didn't have it, then maybe our short stay at the top table would maybe have been longer. and if they hadn't gone on a "spending spree", they would have been at the top table in the first place, I presume this will go in one ear and out the other. You should have supported the club during the McKeag and Seymour years, you 'd have loved it. Then again, soopa mike will drag us down to that level pretty soon now The reason I brought this up was I think they'd already done this - have a relatively fallow year spending wise - during Dalglish's reign I think (and this is off the top of my head, mind) that they'd but a reasonable brake on spending as we had Pearce, Rush and Barnes all playing. My point, is that if they'd taken stock after the SBR reign then perhaps they'd have come up the other side better off. Instead they saw the bright lights and continued to chase after them throwing cash out that we couldn't afford then and still can't. Oh, and don't know about Seymour, but deffo McKeag....1977'ish for me. NE5 will slaughter you for your timescale

think of the bandwidth

It's quite obvious what they (as in people who aren't you or NE5, that said your posts seem to mesh together anyway) are getting at, and it's completely fair and doesn't take much or anything away from their criticism of Ashley. Hindsight. Almost on a par with mandiarse.....but not quite. You show me one poster who said at the time we were playing in the san siro etc that we shouldn't have bought those players that took us there rather than run a solvent business ? You will also find the same posters, for the most part, frothing over at the fat b****** for not buying more players and "splashing the cash" whenever we lost a game or two. i'll show you plenty who said it when we bought luque etc. as i've already posted the position we were in then is vastly different to the position fred left us in......i'll spell it out for you. borrowing money when you have small debts and a sustaining business plan is ok, in some circumstances it is even preferable to raising cash in other ways. borrowing year on year whan you have very high debt to turnover and have no business plan excepet to hope you become succesful is mindless. why do you constantly cherry pick the highpoints and ignore the position we were left in ? I'm not talking about Luque, you are cherry picking a bad signing as being indicative of the clubs whole philisophy. In actual fact, most people said that Luque was a good player/should have a chance. Not too many people agreed with me when I said that he was s**** the first time I saw him. You have to accept that some players don;t work , or are poor buys, but you can't accept this in the same way as you also completely unrealistically can't accept that we don't appoint the right manager every time. In fact, in the last 4 years ie since Bobby Robson, only 5 clubs have had trophy winning managers. Do you still think everybody apart from us has appointed good managers in the last 4 years ? Why do you ignore the previous 12 years before that ? Fact is, as I've told you, they have been held accountable, they have gone, are you happy with the outcome or not ? no. what i was pointing out was the timing, it came at a time when we weren't doing well and as many pointed out was vastly overpriced. i do not ignore the previous 12 years.you know this,i've said they done well but they stopped doing well and didn't seem to me and others as if they were going to turn it round. now again...i've asked you a few times and am yet to receive an answer......if you keep building debts year on year while being unsuccesful on the field and off...do you keep on going with that tactic until the banks call a halt ? am i happy with the outcome.....could've been better but i'd rather what we have than what i envisage would have happened had it not changed. you wanted rid of a board who backed their managers and had ambition, and they have been replaced by someone who won't back his managers. A good manager, backed by his board, will turn the club around, a good manager not backed by his board will move on and so you have no hope. It isn't "tactic", its having someone with the outlook to succeed, getting rid of them for someone who doesn't back their managers is like getting rid of a good goalscorer just because he has a bad run and replacing him with someone who will never be as prolific. No sense. As you have said, the change has been made, and thats what we have got. Maybe next time, people will appreciate when we have a good board of directors, but I doubt it. We wouldn't have gone into administration, but we certainly could if we are relegated and the crowds dive to what they did for years before 1992. As they nearly did. But nobody above the hard core 15-20000 supporters really cared. As I said to fredbob, what is the way forward ? Do you think its cost cutting, relegation, and half the crowds as a result ? so you do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ? do you really think we are the only club with debts ? Was that a yes or a no? are you madras or are you trying to derail the thread ? Do you think we should have taken Mike Ashleys direction, back in 2001, as UV has asked, rather than have those champions league runs etc ? no we aren't the onlu club with debts. we are one of a group of clubs whose debts have reached a level that aren't sustainable and action is needed before it's too late. in 2001 had we spent all of the sponsorship money a few years in advaance ? had we hocked everything available ? was our wage bill over 60 % of turn over ? now please answer my original question......do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ? have it your way. We will follow Mikes path, sell our best players, buy bargains from Hartlepool and hope to compete with the other big boys. As UV has also said, what a shame we didn't have soopa mike instead of the fat b******, we would have had a solvent club in the championship instead of playing in the San Siro and you would have been wetting your knicks at having a solvent club. Have you ever heard of the phrase "if you don;t take a shot you won't score a goal" ? answer my question please. I've answered it, and unlike some of the numpties, I suspect you know exactly what I mean so stop pretending you don't can you provide a link to the answer you gave,i'm not taking the mick. (no pun intended) Back your managers and you have a chance, we got there in the first place through doing just that. Choosing not to back your managers and compete at the level of the likes of Bristol City will leave you, eeeerrr, .......... well work it out. I;ve said this on numerous occasions, there are too many links. I'm sure baggy will find one if you can't be arsed. so you didn't really answer my question did you ?. i asked ........"do you think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?" I've told you. You're completely unrealistic. i'll make it simpler..i'd hate to ask the same question over and over if you dont understand its context........where should the money come from year after year when the club is making a loss to finance this buying ? edit ......I'm unrealistic ? guess whats coming mackems.gif

It's quite obvious what they (as in people who aren't you or NE5, that said your posts seem to mesh together anyway) are getting at, and it's completely fair and doesn't take much or anything away from their criticism of Ashley. Hindsight. Almost on a par with mandiarse.....but not quite. You show me one poster who said at the time we were playing in the san siro etc that we shouldn't have bought those players that took us there rather than run a solvent business ? You will also find the same posters, for the most part, frothing over at the fat b****** for not buying more players and "splashing the cash" whenever we lost a game or two. i'll show you plenty who said it when we bought luque etc. as i've already posted the position we were in then is vastly different to the position fred left us in......i'll spell it out for you. borrowing money when you have small debts and a sustaining business plan is ok, in some circumstances it is even preferable to raising cash in other ways. borrowing year on year whan you have very high debt to turnover and have no business plan excepet to hope you become succesful is mindless. why do you constantly cherry pick the highpoints and ignore the position we were left in ? I'm not talking about Luque, you are cherry picking a bad signing as being indicative of the clubs whole philisophy. In actual fact, most people said that Luque was a good player/should have a chance. Not too many people agreed with me when I said that he was s**** the first time I saw him. You have to accept that some players don;t work , or are poor buys, but you can't accept this in the same way as you also completely unrealistically can't accept that we don't appoint the right manager every time. In fact, in the last 4 years ie since Bobby Robson, only 5 clubs have had trophy winning managers. Do you still think everybody apart from us has appointed good managers in the last 4 years ? Why do you ignore the previous 12 years before that ? Fact is, as I've told you, they have been held accountable, they have gone, are you happy with the outcome or not ? no. what i was pointing out was the timing, it came at a time when we weren't doing well and as many pointed out was vastly overpriced. i do not ignore the previous 12 years.you know this,i've said they done well but they stopped doing well and didn't seem to me and others as if they were going to turn it round. now again...i've asked you a few times and am yet to receive an answer......if you keep building debts year on year while being unsuccesful on the field and off...do you keep on going with that tactic until the banks call a halt ? am i happy with the outcome.....could've been better but i'd rather what we have than what i envisage would have happened had it not changed. you wanted rid of a board who backed their managers and had ambition, and they have been replaced by someone who won't back his managers. A good manager, backed by his board, will turn the club around, a good manager not backed by his board will move on and so you have no hope. It isn't "tactic", its having someone with the outlook to succeed, getting rid of them for someone who doesn't back their managers is like getting rid of a good goalscorer just because he has a bad run and replacing him with someone who will never be as prolific. No sense. As you have said, the change has been made, and thats what we have got. Maybe next time, people will appreciate when we have a good board of directors, but I doubt it. We wouldn't have gone into administration, but we certainly could if we are relegated and the crowds dive to what they did for years before 1992. As they nearly did. But nobody above the hard core 15-20000 supporters really cared. As I said to fredbob, what is the way forward ? Do you think its cost cutting, relegation, and half the crowds as a result ? so you do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ? do you really think we are the only club with debts ? Was that a yes or a no? are you madras or are you trying to derail the thread ? Do you think we should have taken Mike Ashleys direction, back in 2001, as UV has asked, rather than have those champions league runs etc ? no we aren't the onlu club with debts. we are one of a group of clubs whose debts have reached a level that aren't sustainable and action is needed before it's too late. in 2001 had we spent all of the sponsorship money a few years in advaance ? had we hocked everything available ? was our wage bill over 60 % of turn over ? now please answer my original question......do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ? have it your way. We will follow Mikes path, sell our best players, buy bargains from Hartlepool and hope to compete with the other big boys. As UV has also said, what a shame we didn't have soopa mike instead of the fat b******, we would have had a solvent club in the championship instead of playing in the San Siro and you would have been wetting your knicks at having a solvent club. Have you ever heard of the phrase "if you don;t take a shot you won't score a goal" ? answer my question please. I've answered it, and unlike some of the numpties, I suspect you know exactly what I mean so stop pretending you don't can you provide a link to the answer you gave,i'm not taking the mick. (no pun intended) Back your managers and you have a chance, we got there in the first place through doing just that. Choosing not to back your managers and compete at the level of the likes of Bristol City will leave you, eeeerrr, .......... well work it out. I;ve said this on numerous occasions, there are too many links. I'm sure baggy will find one if you can't be arsed. so you didn't really answer my question did you ?. i asked ........"do you think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?" i'll make it simpler..i'd hate to ask the same question over and over if you dont inderstand its context........where should the money come from year after year when the club is making a loss to finance this buying ?

what If they hadn't gone on a kamikazi spending spree, hoying money about when we didn't have it, then maybe our short stay at the top table would maybe have been longer. and if they hadn't gone on a "spending spree", they would have been at the top table in the first place, I presume this will go in one ear and out the other. You should have supported the club during the McKeag and Seymour years, you 'd have loved it. Then again, soopa mike will drag us down to that level pretty soon now i think the kamikazee spending spree he is on about was when we had left the top table (and to continue the analogy) and were on the way to the bog.