thomas

Of the ones listed, has to be Given by a country mile.

It just seems to imply that an Offer period has begin, as per NUFCs complicance with the takeover code 2.10 [link] : The 5p is not a bid from Belgravia.

The attitude is there, the ability simply isn't. I'm absolutely sure Shola means well and genuinely wants to help the club and establish himself as some kind of front line leader like Al was but it's just not going to happen for him. It's pity more than anger I feel towards him most of the time.

legend :lol: :lol: Dave -- won't it look normal if you take off the height/width parts of the tag? odd could have sworn you can manually change the values : 1152 x 834 should do

A chess move indeed. He's forcing Belgravia to show their hand.

I think it's just his misguided way of dealing with the anger and frustration we're all sharing, by sniping at fellow supporters. Feel bad for the lad actually. [edit] Odd, where'd BottledDogs post go ...

Shay is the better of the two, plain and simple. The fact Harper has done "okay" while Shay's been out is not enough in my mind to warrant keeping Given out. That's what I find laughable. Has Harper been shambolic? No. But he's shown me absolutely nothing to convince me he deserves to keep the starting job over Given. He is a good #2 and true, at many other clubs in this league he may be good enough to be a #1. But not here, while Shay is available for selection.

that made my day bluelaugh.gif bluelaugh.gif

Not if sorting out that hair is part of the contract

Scenario A isn't a straight scenario though. You're trying to corner people into saying they'll have one kind of reaction regardless of what kind of spending it is, since any spending is "a gamble". It's not though. Prudent spending, addressing the needs of the team, would result in at least some begrudged credit being given even if we go down, e.g. "at least they did that right". Being pandered to with a big name, big money trophy signing or two is going to definitely result in criticism, I think, even if we stay up. A far greater gamble. I'll go "on record" as saying I'll credit them with acting responsibly if we spend and spend well in January. I will definitely slate them if we do not spend or if the only spending is on trophy players. The manager picks the players to bring in. :) Again though, there's a distinction. It's not as simplistic as "debt/turnover = slating". Our debt/turnover ratio right now are the result of poor decisions by several parties involved. The reaction to it is well known though not completely understood by all. However, at this moment, increasing it in an effort to right a sinking ship, gamble though it may be, may be the only way to salvage this season and thus is acceptable. So to answer the reformed query with my own reformed answer , I will back responsible spending in January. Cheers And I believe the signing of Owen could well come into that category. He made a difference, although to avoid a battle last season Souness still had to be sacked. Had we not signed Owen the debt wouldn't be anything like what it is now, but.......... As I understood it Owen was signed after dipping into some kind of "Wor Al Replacement Fund" or somesuch. Still, point taken. So long as they're not complete shite I really don't care who the exact player is. The positions we need most (center back, right back, forward, left back) are of more concern. Having said that, I don't necessarily expect us to sign 4 new players but by fuck if turns out another winger gets signed and titus brambles name is still anywhere near the first team sheet, someone needs shooting.

Scenario A isn't a straight scenario though. You're trying to corner people into saying they'll have one kind of reaction regardless of what kind of spending it is, since any spending is "a gamble". It's not though. Prudent spending, addressing the needs of the team, would result in at least some begrudged credit being given even if we go down, e.g. "at least they did that right". Being pandered to with a big name, big money trophy signing or two is going to definitely result in criticism, I think, even if we stay up. A far greater gamble. I'll go "on record" as saying I'll credit them with acting responsibly if we spend and spend well in January. I will definitely slate them if we do not spend or if the only spending is on trophy players. The manager picks the players to bring in. :) Again though, there's a distinction. It's not as simplistic as "debt/turnover = slating". Our debt/turnover ratio right now are the result of poor decisions by several parties involved. The reaction to it is well known though not completely understood by all. However, at this moment, increasing it in an effort to right a sinking ship, gamble though it may be, may be the only way to salvage this season and thus is acceptable. So to answer the reformed query with my own reformed answer , I will back responsible spending in January. Cheers

Scenario A isn't a straight scenario though. You're trying to corner people into saying they'll have one kind of reaction regardless of what kind of spending it is, since any spending is "a gamble". It's not though. Prudent spending, addressing the needs of the team, would result in at least some begrudged credit being given even if we go down, e.g. "at least they did that right". Being pandered to with a big name, big money trophy signing or two is going to definitely result in criticism, I think, even if we stay up. A far greater gamble. I'll go "on record" as saying I'll credit them with acting responsibly if we spend and spend well in January. I will definitely slate them if we do not spend or if the only spending is on trophy players.

just on a common sense level, what business (apart from a football consortium) would take on the risk of running a club for 10 years? Of course they're going to want returns quickly. Why do you say that? On a common sense level, no business (or individual for that matter) with any sense of financial nous would invest in a club expecting returns quickly. Think about how much they'd spend on the club + players to get us to the top 4 + managers + clubs debts outstanding already. There's no way, even with CL money coming in, to recoup that investment quickly. Anyone buying into us would have to buy in with the idea of long term success / income offsetting the short term heavy investing it took to get there. Is that using the Jack Walker model? Or the John Hall model? Are either club worse off now than when they came in? edit: erm ... well is blackburn worse off at least tongue.gif

just on a common sense level, what business (apart from a football consortium) would take on the risk of running a club for 10 years? Of course they're going to want returns quickly. Why do you say that? On a common sense level, no business (or individual for that matter) with any sense of financial nous would invest in a club expecting returns quickly. Think about how much they'd spend on the club + players to get us to the top 4 + managers + clubs debts outstanding already. There's no way, even with CL money coming in, to recoup that investment quickly. Anyone buying into us would have to buy in with the idea of long term success / income offsetting the short term heavy investing it took to get there.

Scaremongering of the worst sort tbh. Why is the myth perpetuated that they're a cut and run outfit? Not just in the article but I see it on here too.

Erm i think most people are aware of whats wrong with him and what is causing his injuries to flare up....well at least i think they do...dont they? I was under the impression it was just a rumour. I'd never seen any conclusive evidence of such.

haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahaha good god. I laughed for ten minutes straight. Feel bad for him, but that's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time.

bring back you know what

macbeth surely bluedead.gif

Every time I see him he looks more and more like http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/558/skeletor470a32ftj9.jpg

Good for him. Hope he stays healthy. Solano, Milner and Dyer all available would make the suddenly worrying prospect of Beckham joining less attractive.

I feel ill. http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/9418/emotebarfep6.gif

Few kits and I order as many matches on PPV as I can. All totalled around 800 US so ~£400. edit: unsure how much of a cut the club gets from PPV revenue.

Like that idea a lot more than duff at LB.