Wullie

Because a large number of them are financed by generous benefactors who are happy to throw money at their clubs? Like Stoke and Wolves? Aye, righto. Ok - I'll try again - other clubs weren't trying to correct years of negligent ownership that had created an 100% unsustainable business. Any other examples you'd like me to bat back? How long are you going to bang this drum? Will you still be defending him in 2015 on the basis of "what Shepherd did"? At what point does it become his responsibility seeing as there isn't a contract at the club that wasn't signed under Ashley? I'd agree that there comes a point where Shepherd's mistakes become irrelevant (even if they did set off a chain of catastrophic events). But I am not sure that pointing out that none of the contracts at the club were not signed by Ashley makes a whole lot of difference. He still inherited a mess and has to try and clean up that mess. This will be a popular post. It has to be said if Ashley left the club tomorrow he would leave it in a hell of a lot better condition than the day he took it on. In what sense? Not financially and on the pitch, the difference is marginal.

Because a large number of them are financed by generous benefactors who are happy to throw money at their clubs? Like Stoke and Wolves? Aye, righto. Ok - I'll try again - other clubs weren't trying to correct years of negligent ownership that had created an 100% unsustainable business. Any other examples you'd like me to bat back? How long are you going to bang this drum? Will you still be defending him in 2015 on the basis of "what Shepherd did"? At what point does it become his responsibility seeing as there isn't a contract at the club that wasn't signed under Ashley? But Wullie, the accounts state regular losses for every year in recent memory, that's a fact. Unless we're happy to let that debt increase (which clearly some clubs are for the reasons we've discussed) something had to change. The Shepherd era created an underlying business that wasn't sustainable, that seems to be a fact as well. If you're arguing that Ashley should be letting the debt increase and continuing to subsidise it himself, then that's a valid argument. Maybe you think he has a moral obligation to do so. If not, then something about our ratio of income:outgoings had to be tweaked. Where are the losses coming from though Ian? What major outgoings does a football club have other than wages, given that the stadium mortgage was automatically paid off when Ashley took over because he hadn't done his homework (and therefore the incoming funds from SJP should be vastly in excess of what they were under Shepherd)? If the club is making a loss because the wages are too high, then that is Ashley's fault. We also took a huge hit because of relegation - Ashley's fault. Turnover is lower than it was under Shepherd - Ashley's fault. It's fuck all to do with Shepherd and everything to do with being absolutely shit at running a football club to an acceptable standard, both financially and on the field.

Because a large number of them are financed by generous benefactors who are happy to throw money at their clubs? Like Stoke and Wolves? Aye, righto. Ok - I'll try again - other clubs weren't trying to correct years of negligent ownership that had created an 100% unsustainable business. Any other examples you'd like me to bat back? How long are you going to bang this drum? Will you still be defending him in 2015 on the basis of "what Shepherd did"? At what point does it become his responsibility seeing as there isn't a contract at the club that wasn't signed under Ashley?

Ryan Taylor and Perch? What you on about man?

Was Downing in the last year of his contract? If he wasn't then it's a totally different situation. No, Downing had two years left. Whelan's ace at this, wringing every last penny out of a deal, but if he's going to arse around till the last day of the window, then we need to move on elsewhere. I think he should consider himself lucky if he gets £7-8m for Zog in the last year of his contract. He'll capitulate as it gets nearer the close of the window but it would serve him right if the deal fell through and Zog walked for free next season. If it keeps them up again then it's job done. £8m as opposed to £40m? Serve him right ffs.

Because a large number of them are financed by generous benefactors who are happy to throw money at their clubs? Like Stoke and Wolves? Aye, righto.

Why aren't any of the other Premier League clubs using 100% of their income to "finance the general running of the clubs"? Ian, how likely is the strategy you are championing to get us back into the top 6/top 4 of the Premier League? If the answer is "not very" then it's not workable.

It shouldn't be in our bank account though. Having severely weakened the team, it must be used to strengthen it again, and should be added to whatever was already going to be spent this summer (ho ho).

Do owners of companies usually charge themselves interest?

He's simply not getting enough football imo. I look at players like Wilshere and Phil Jones and I worry that we leave it far too late to get players on the field regularly at any decent level. Vuckic is six months younger than those two, highly rated, yet they've been playing fairly regularly for at least 18 months while Vuckic has done nothing, not even a loan spell, and imo, you can gain very little from reserve team football. Andy Carroll is the perfect example of how important regular first team football is at a young age. Kadar's the same, he's had injuries but at 21, he should have way more experience than he does and I fear he'll fall by the wayside.

You don't get this at Hartlepool.

I think the opposite is true, I think your way of thinking is incredibly negative and defeatist. I resent the insinuation that I "wish" for the worst. How do you come to that conclusion when the people who think like me are the ones who want proper investment and to improve the team by buying and keeping good players? How the fuck is that negative thinking? Negative thinking is being content as long as we're ticking along and not going out of business. I find it interesting you thought I was addressing you. Pretty obvious that I'm in the demographic you were taking a pop at.

Where's that Backpedalling Paperboy gif?

:lol:

I think the opposite is true, I think your way of thinking is incredibly negative and defeatist. I resent the insinuation that I "wish" for the worst. How do you come to that conclusion when the people who think like me are the ones who want proper investment and to improve the team by buying and keeping good players? How the fuck is that negative thinking? Negative thinking is being content as long as we're ticking along and not going out of business.

Greedy cunt.

Was the day I realised I really never would see us win any thing. That was a rotten week. Went from Lisbon to Cardiff for the semi-final and then Norwich. I didn't go to Lisbon but went to Cardiff, Norwich and then Old Trafford the following Sunday. Absolute despair when Dean Ashton headed that late winner.

We had that Sporting tie totally in the bag.

We battered them at home but when they got that second away goal, I was never confident of killing the tie off.

I don't have a problem with that as long as we're confident they can do the job competently, I've not seen either them enough to say. We don't really want to be stuck with another situation where we're wheeling out Huntington/Ramage/Edgar to get the run around every week.

Absolutely no doubt we need somebody else who can play centre half, to do without would be insanity.

Completely wrong. Most of those goals and assists would have occured during games inwhich he started. Including 20/30 minute substitue appearences as full games is more unfair. I prefer the comprehensive 16 (+8) method.