madras
-
Posts
73,582 -
Joined
Everything posted by madras
-
You talk about expectations of others then mention Ashley beating the best finishes under Shepherd. Do they not have to beat the first four years before going onto the best years? You know, the ones when we finished 13th twice followed by 11th twice. Shepherd was never the major shareholder or owner. Ashley has never been the chairman. bump. Ashley wasn't the chairman, and Shepherd was never the major shareholder or owner ashley is running the show as was shepherd regardless of titles.
-
The point Dave was making I believe was that you have a tendency to lump in anyone who criticises the old board in any way at all with the few, and its a very small few from what I've seen, who do fail to give them any credit whatsoever for anything. My opinion of the old board/Shepherd was that their hearts were in the right place, they were genuinely trying to take the club forward, but their decision making at key times in their latter years of power seemed to indicate that they were always likely to struggle to get us there. I reckon quite a few share this opinion, and its very unfair to lump in anyone who does with the very few who fail to give them any credit whatsoever. Given the size of the club, it's reasonable to argue that there's nothing really stopping us from getting up among the top teams in the country again. Except, of course, how the club is run by those in charge. So for that reason I think people were happy to see a change at board level. Is the new board in any way gauranteed to be better? Not at all. But my feeling was that Shepherd's reign had run its course, and while nobody is denying there were some good times in there I do believe we'd gone as far as we were ever going to under him. So people are generally optimistic about having someone new in charge, and are waiting to see what happens. If they do a s**** job and in a couple of years we're still stranded in mid-table, then you can bet that they won't be popular on here. But surely the deserve a fair chance first? And surely people don't deserve to be attacked for giving them that chance? I'm not disagreeing, my take was always with the people who thought anyone would be an automatic improvement. Clearly bollocks. They did well. Replacing with better would be not easy. Maybe now some can see this [but won't admit it] if you remember back in the days when HTL was about i was of the same opinion and didn't want shepherd forced out without any plan or replacement. they did well for a time,but you don't mention which way the club was headed when he left.
-
sigh. what we say on here has absolutely jack s*** effect on the club mate. I have never said that the old board didn't make any mistakes by the way, but as UV says, there are plenty of people attempting to say they never did anything right. Your reference to a lack of trophies demonstrates how expectations and standards have been raised during their time in charge by the way. Anyway, it is not my wish to offend some people by the simple and hideous crime of simply disagreeing with them, so I'll leave it there. What a shame some good posters have left this board, we used to have good discussions about things like this. can you tell me who is saying the shepherd regime "NEVER DID ANYTHING RIGHT" ?
-
don't be silly Dave, you're only allowed to comment on things if you make out the board were the worst ever that ever ran a football club. There's absolutely no "in between", you should know this by now. Do you even understand the point I was making there? Because it appears not. Despite my numerous attempts to put across the bigger picture in terms of the history of the club, it seems that you don't understand, don't want to, as do lots of other people. So long as people agree with you, its alright to comment ? all people are saying is about the way the club were headed.
-
See above, companies with big turnovers never go bust or get into financial difficulty apparently. and Newcastle in 1991 had a big turnover did they mackems.gif They couldn't even sell shares to the value of 1.25m quid, a fact which thickmick knows only too well. :idiot2 I was quoting you mate, talking about us never going bust now mackems.gif no, you were quoting Mort when he said we were going bust, but I;m saying he was talking bollocks and was just point scoring with supporters However, we were most definitely going bust in 1991. mort said we were on the way to going bust 2007 hall said we were on the way to going bust 1991 probably both playing the same scare game did YOU put in to buy shares in 1991 ? no i didn't. i thought the line being peddled by hall was a ruse and if it didn;t work the club would still go on(and guess what ?). i think i wasn't that impressed about the ammount of shares they were planning on keeping for themselves ie you put the money in but have no say. i did put money in to the buy a player fund of a few years earlier So you thought that sub 20,000 crowds, a failed share issue, and one foot in the 3rd divison, was a ruse ? yes it was a bad position but like mort's assertion i don't think the club would have gone to the wall back then either.
-
Well that's your opinion, but I'll refer you back to the period 98-02 which was similar (worse) than what we were going through and which we recovered from to get into the Champions League. I'm curious, but at that at that time did you recommend that we not spend on players such as Robert, Bellamy, Jenas, Viana, Woodgate? Exactly. And as he wasn't the worst chairman ever, he must have done everything right! It's only monstrous ill-luck that saw us win nowt and, over the last ten years, end up in the bottom half of the table more often as not. Great contributions to the discussion, thanks. Why not just post a picture of a scarecrow next time to save typing. at that time we had bobby robson as manager,a decent wage to turnover ratio and didn't have 80mill worth of debt so spending on those players wasn't so bad. could you tell me how long we could let managers like souness,roeder and allardyce go on and how much debt you'd let them chalk up while going backwards on the pitch ?
-
you know me. i'll find the third side to an argument that only has two.
-
They have a bigger turnover mostly because they are regularly in the CL. What happens when (not if btw) that stops? Edit: They currently have a £300m debt which costs over £20m/year to service. Their wage bill is around £15m more than ours (probably more now). On a good year for them, and a poor year for us, they make around £30m more than us. How come they're fine but we were in financial meltdown. it doesn't matter what the reason is for thir larger turnover. and my guess is that if they went a couple of yeras outside the champs league they would stop spending the way they have been. please point out where i said we were in "financial meltdown". all i've ever stated is that we couldn't keep on racking up debt the way we were. I'm sure they would. Just as I'm sure we would have cut back if we went a couple of years outside the UEFA if we were reliant on that income. If you don't think we were destined for bankruptcy, then I'm glad you agree with myself, NE5 and others; you appeared to be agreeing with those posters who, along with Mort, do believe this (or say they believe this anyway). i don't believe bankruptcy was imminent but i couldn't see the club improving on or off the pitch with shepherd in charge.
-
They have a bigger turnover mostly because they are regularly in the CL. What happens when (not if btw) that stops? Edit: They currently have a £300m debt which costs over £20m/year to service. Their wage bill is around £15m more than ours (probably more now). On a good year for them, and a poor year for us, they make around £30m more than us. How come they're fine but we were in financial meltdown. it doesn't matter what the reason is for thir larger turnover. and my guess is that if they went a couple of yeras outside the champs league they would stop spending the way they have been. please point out where i said we were in "financial meltdown". all i've ever stated is that we couldn't keep on racking up debt the way we were.
-
ok then...... liverpool turnover 2004/5.....121.054mill 2003/4......92.576mill 2002/3.....102.504mill 2002/1.....98.668mill 2001/0.....82.155mill nufc turnover..... 2004/5.....87.087 2003/4.....90.468 2002/3.....90.449 2001/2.....70.558 2000/1.....54.916 they have a bigger turnover so can afford to finance more debt.
-
if he decides he wants to go to munich for example ,even if we offer more the only question for zenit is wether to accept munichs bid.(the kewell scenario) or we offer a significantly over the top ammount (the owen scenario). as much as i like arshavin as a player i'm not keen on playing well over the top for a 27yr old.
-
no it's not. it's about where the player wants to go and if that club offers enough (not necessarily the most)
-
even better....he plays against us
-
This sounds so gay. I LOVE penalties. The measure of a man nh, 1 touch, 1 shot, 1 chance. Players choke, some become heroes, some become villains.. Football is not only a sport but entertainment and there is nothing more nail-biting and tense than a penalty shoot out. Love them even though they've rarely been good to me. 1 team playing defensive all game hoping for penalties ? It's obvious to everyone that playing for shoot-outs is dumb... only if your numerically disadvantaged is it a good idea... If there was another system stupid teams would do the same thing and wait for whatever steaua......italy on many occasions, if they knew it would end on the pitch then holding out for pens wouldnt happen
-
This sounds so gay. I LOVE penalties. The measure of a man nh, 1 touch, 1 shot, 1 chance. Players choke, some become heroes, some become villains.. Football is not only a sport but entertainment and there is nothing more nail-biting and tense than a penalty shoot out. Love them even though they've rarely been good to me. 1 team playing defensive all game hoping for penalties ?
-
only when you find it
-
shagged his mam in the centre circle at half time
-
did he deal you any good hands ?
-
See above, companies with big turnovers never go bust or get into financial difficulty apparently. and Newcastle in 1991 had a big turnover did they mackems.gif They couldn't even sell shares to the value of 1.25m quid, a fact which thickmick knows only too well. :idiot2 I was quoting you mate, talking about us never going bust now mackems.gif no, you were quoting Mort when he said we were going bust, but I;m saying he was talking bollocks and was just point scoring with supporters However, we were most definitely going bust in 1991. mort said we were on the way to going bust 2007 hall said we were on the way to going bust 1991 probably both playing the same scare game did YOU put in to buy shares in 1991 ? no i didn't. i thought the line being peddled by hall was a ruse and if it didn;t work the club would still go on(and guess what ?). i think i wasn't that impressed about the ammount of shares they were planning on keeping for themselves ie you put the money in but have no say. i did put money in to the buy a player fund of a few years earlier
-
amoxycillin will ghet rid mate
-
the av (theres more ? )
