Wullie

:lol:

That's fair, took your point incorrectly there. I don't really care anymore myself (actively want us to lose now Bagpuss is here tbh) but certainly can't blame anyone who does, as long as they're not giving that fucker any money.

When Ashley has gone, (I know), will it become your club again? Our situation isn't exactly MK Dons level of utter shitness. No that is the big difference, it's not permanent but it might as well be. Tens of thousands of our fans are determined to keep him here by filling his pockets.

That's fine, as long as you know that's exactly what he's depending on and the reason he will stay here indefinitely. He's booked in for as long as so many people have vowed to give him money for nothing. He'd be fucking mad to leave that.

Depends how much you think it's your club I suppose. I don't consider it mine now much more than an original Wimbledon fan considers MK Dons theirs.

"The new manager has improved fitness" is the most tedious of softball footballing cliches. Just something for kiss arse players to say about the new guy that can't be obviously disproved. Unfortunately for Colback he's a bit thick and probably doesn't realise that claiming Steve Bruce has a better fitness regime for his players than Rafael Benitez does is laugh out loud funny. Like saying Dave Bassett has improved things tactically having taken over from Pep Guardiola.

Tbf I can name more journalists whose opinion I enjoy reading/listening to than I can ex-pros.

Mike Ashley has a big advantage as a businessman and that he is a complete cunt for whom no business practice is too low if it makes him an extra penny. Most of the competition that his company saw off were probably paying at least minimum wage and not forcing pregnant women to give birth in the bogs, on account of them having a single sliver of humanity that Mike Ashley just doesn't have to hinder him. Sure, plenty of big business people are ruthless but Ashley is on another level. In a low margin sector, that will have been the difference between survival and going bust, and Ashley has since cleaned up in an uncompetitive market.

Something doesn't sit right with me about a US company attempting to monopolise UK sports journalism. https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/soccer/english-soccer/us-upstart-the-athletic-sends-shockwaves-through-british-football-media-1.3974420?mode=amp Hmm yes this definitely appears to be a noble cause worthy of my money. No thanks.

Kean is a fucking amazing signing for Merseyside Blue.

Perez's stats for how much work (running, tackling, interceptions) he was doing were way way ahead of any other forward player in the league iirc.

Should be sectioned.

His all time favourite player is Shola, man. What a wassock. Well Bruce was the tactical mastermind boss of Sunderland that saw Shola blast a hattrick in our 5-1 win. I think you mean Kevin Nolan.

This is fascinating stuff.

Sure, it's just the only large scale football related boycott of a product I know of. It's similar though in the sense that Mike Ashley has been a horrendous scourge on the City of Newcastle upon Tyne and it's not a massive leap to expect the people of the city not to shop in his warehouse full of shite. Unfortunately we have shown even that is beyond us.

Do people in Liverpool who aren't interested in LFC buy The Sun?

Spot on.

I think location is the biggest factor. It's a long standing cultural tradition of the city, on Saturday you go into the city centre, fill the pubs and walk to the match. It's easy to forget that the majority of fans in this country can't do that, and certainly not in the PL. If the habit of leaving the pub at 5 to 3 and being back at the bar before 5pm suddenly became sit in the car for an hour trying to find a parking space, or stuff yourself into a packed train on the way out to a retail park, watching a Steve Bruce team instantly looks a lot less appealing.

Why would Rondon have commanded massive wages? Was he on that at West Brom?

Yep, same. Just keep thinking... why didnt they back Rafa with that sort of money/investment? He was given Joselu. Simple. They didn't need to. Benitez could easily keep the club in the top flight with Joselu. Bagpuss can't. Same reason McClaren got given a load of money, because he was fucking hopeless. They just hoped the signings would offset it.

We always pay up front and always ask to receive installments.

Delph.

Of course he's not man.

He was always likely to release a load of the club's money for Bagpuss, in the same way he did for McClaren. Hopeless managers need more subsidy.

Wrong again. If we keep making a loss, and will keep making a loss in the future, he has to either keep taking the loss or has to sell for cheap and write some of the loss off. Like what Ellis Short did. He'll have no choice. If he asks unreasonable amounts for a club with debt, nobody will buy it off him and so it (and therefore he!) will keep making a loss. No failing business has ever had its owner keep the high business value and just tack the debt on and see a successful sale. History is replete with examples of businesses being sold for nominal sums like £1 because of how they're performing. Nothing you're saying makes sense. He's already asking for an unreasonable amount and the club is in over a 100m in debt... You remind me of the arguments I have with my parents about Brexit or global warming. There is no level of proof which is high enough to convince them that they might be wrong. No matter how much actual evidence I put in front of them, from experts and peer-reviewed sources, they just go "Nah, that's not right" and show me some Daily Mail article about how forrins are ruining the country. It's about as rewarding as trying to kick water up a hill. You're the same. Not saying your a Brexiteer or climate change denier, of course, but you're so deeply entrenched that where this is concerned there's no level of evidence which is satisfactory for you to question your standpoint. You just dismiss everything anyone puts as if none of it carries any weight whatsoever, no matter how backed in facts, figures, or historical evidence. I don't want to be rude to you, because you've not been rude to me or indeed anyone on here and for that at least I respect you. But I come from a scientific background and believe strongly in the scientific method. I like to think I'm very open to new ideas and reassessing my viewpoint in light of new information as that's how we grow as people and how we expand our horizons. But you don't have this in your DNA and when I can see that only one side is putting out a compelling case there's no way of getting around that discussing anything with you is just a complete waste of time. You haven't really shown me evidence though mate, you've basically just said that if you take away ticket revenue that we'd make a loss. I hadn't looked at the accounts and you're right we would make a loss. We made a profit of £18.7 so taking away ticket revenue we would make a loss. But do you really think that makes Ashley sell the club? We've had years in the past where we've made a loss and he hasn't sold the club or lowered his price. Im sorry like but just because you come from a scientific background that doesn't mean you're correct. Why would he hang onto something that makes heavy losses year on year if he wasn't able to stem them (because he wasn't selling shirts or tickets)? Would you hang onto something that's costing you a f***ing fortune that you get no benefit from? Actually yes you would, and you do. The club has made losses in this tenure previously and he hasn't sold the club, in fact the club was making a loss before he bought the f***er Year on year? Consistently? Without the crowd there to subsidise to the tune of £25m+ a year? When did this happen? Even if with ticket revenue the club made a loss and he still didn't sell the club What? What question are you even answering?