UV

I completely dispute this. How the hell could Keegan foresee that Ashley would make the decisions he subsequently has. Sure, he would know there would be a bit of an outcry, but these things happen and after a while it dies down and people carry on - just look at the number of people who are clinging on to the hope Ashley will do something - anything - positive so they can forgive him and continue to believe in their dream-world new-Arsenal scenario of a Champions League club built on peanuts. Spend a couple of million in January or give just about anyone the managers job to the end of the season and he'll be the saviour of the club once again to many (on here at least). In fact the irony is, the longer he lets the current situation carry on, the worse the position the club gets into, the more desperate as supporters we become, the less he he will have to do to make himself a hero once again in the eyes of the deluded - I'm sure spending a small fraction of the money the club has already brought in as revenue this season in January would seal it. I don't believe anyone could have foreseen Ashley openly putting the club up for sale straight away and leaving it in limbo while it didn't sell. If the DOF structure has one redeeming feature it's that it's supposed to make the transition between managers easier not so impossible you have to sell the club. I also don't buy into the he should have left at a "better" time crap. I'll quote what I said at the start of October to save typing:

Priceless.

There's a campaign! I'd expect similar "we're all behind him" quotes from any senior player.

Perhaps as way of proper comparison you'd like to post a team from today's squad without 7 first team midfielders and 2 best strikers (Bowyer, Dyer, Emre, Parker, Jenas, Luque, Milner, Shearer, Owen from that squad iirc) I don't think Jenas was there then. Yup, you're right. I edited, but too late. Only 6 injuries in midfield.

Perhaps as way of proper comparison you'd like to post a team from today's squad without 6 first team midfielders and 2 best strikers (Bowyer, Dyer, Emre, Parker, Luque, Milner, Shearer, Owen from that squad iirc)

Yes he paid off debt, which then meant his company didn't have to pay interest payments and also increased the value of his asset. However he's never shown that he'll actually put in his own money for transfers. So would you also criticise transfer spending in that it might lead to success and increase the value of his asset? I don't get how paying of the debt can be anything but a great thing for the club. Paying off the debt is good for Mike Ashley. It would only be good for the club though (in footballing terms) if the money saved in interest payments were ploughed back into the club (improved facilities, transfer fees, wages, etc). As an analogy, if I pay off my mortgage early it's good for ME as I will save money in interest payments. However paying off my mortgage early does nothing to improve the state of my house itself. It would only do so if I used the money saved to decorate or extend it, not if I used the money I saved to host lavish parties in New York for example.

again? Aye, like when he paid off the debts and that. Pay off debts = no interest repayments = a) More money for player purchases & wages or b) Higher profit margin for Mike What was the motive, a) or b) - you decide.

again?

Ashley made him pay for it himself though.

I will be, North East corner like but I make my own noise. BOOOOOOOOOO

Warp Brothers & Aquagen - Phatt Bass Should just get the original though (New Order - Confusion (Pump Panel Remix))

I found this interesting: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2008/oct/30/tottenhamhotspur-premierleague Success leads to continuity far more than continuity leads to success. But we can surely agree that sacking the manager and the entire management structure a few games into every season is going to be bad for business? Better to sack a manager who is clearly failing and showing no sign of knowing how to turn the situation around than to stick with him for the sake of continuity. Even the best looking appointments on the face of it can fail for reasons we can't really fathom. I don't think there were many who thought Ramos was a bad appointment for Spurs (the reason most of our alleged targets ended up at Spurs was because of Ramos and how well they were going to do according to some). So should Spurs have stuck with him? We can't say for sure what would have happened had he stayed, but it didn't look like anything was going to change anytime soon with him in charge, and Spurs could easily have found themselves in a position from which they couldn't recover. Of course those who use hindsight to judge decisions made in the past would probably say Ramos was a bad appointment from the start.

I found this interesting: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2008/oct/30/tottenhamhotspur-premierleague Success leads to continuity far more than continuity leads to success. I'm in a minority I know, but I think Jol is a poor manager, and we dodged the bullet there.

The blueprint!!! Pre-blurprint Sam Allardyce said we had a lack of youngsters at the club that is why in the Jan he went & brought in Tozer & Kadar to add to Ngo who he signed earlier in the season. How Sam signed these youngsters without Jeff, Jimmy & Dennis is a mystery. I dont mind building from young first team players like Bobby did, Wegner does, Spurs did until they started chucking the £££'s around but I think you more likely to fail by building from youths who are at the U18 level. As for Colo & Jonas they are some of our better players but lets make out they are the only decent players we have ever signed & it had to be down to the system. Who mentioned the trio of evil? Mike Ashley was the owner for (give or take a week) all of Sams tenure - therefore the signings made by Sam you mentioned were under his 'blueprint' And I did not claim that Colo and Jonas were the only good players we have signed, but they were spotted by our scouting network and therefore is evidence that they did actually have a clue about what they were looking for. It wasn't perfect (obviously) but it did a fair bit of good in its time here I'd imagine Colo & Jonas weren't actually targeted because of the scouting network, but because of Jimenez' agent contacts tbh (ie no different to the club being offered Willie McKay's players previously), but that's another subject.

Becasue its near impossible for a british manager to drop the england U21 captain for that reason alone. Kinnear isn't British, wahey! it's daft though, if they have a backbone it wouldn't mean f*** all to them I always thought this - why is it that fans have this ability to be able to pick out crap players but the managers always seem to stick with them, through thick and thin. Because the manager gets to see the alternatives in training, but supporters tend to have an inflated idea of how the alternatives will perform, especially if they haven't actually played in the first team for a while/much/at all.

Are you saying that no-one would be interested at any price?

Both right, I've been saying for ages that doing 'anything' isn't always better than doing nothing - in fact this is a prime example of how hasty action can be harmful. "There are risks and costs to action. But they are far less than the long range risks of comfortable inaction." - JFK (the other one) If you don't like what NUSC are doing, get yourself along to the meetings and have your say. If there were only 50 there, you'd have had an excellent opportunity to put your point across. I don't think they're expressing themselves particularly well, and in the short term I don't think any kind of protest or boycott will make any difference one way or the other. I'm sure in the future I'll disagree with a lot of their objectives, but I'm not going to sit here and criticise them for standing up and at least attempting to put across a consensus opinion and initiate some action. I've said it before, but if you're so convinced Ashley is selling up because of protests, start your own group up to show him the level of support he has. You're not going to persuade him to stay just by sniping and whining on the internet about other people getting off their arse and acting on their beliefs.

Shortage of multi-billionaires eager to play Fairy Godmother and splash obscene amounts of money, fractious and quite possibly ungrateful fanbase, global financial meltdown etc etc. Got to face it, we have made ourselves very unattractive with our latest protests etc. In fact, the worst part is that we have made ourselves investable only by exactly the kind of people that we don't want - someone who's only in it for the money. Bollocks has a week of protests which has since dwindled out changed anything. Any potential owner who doesn't realise they're going to get a bit of stick when they don't spend any money on the team after collecting unprecedented amounts of TV money, asking for 3 years up front season ticket revenue, and then having a respected manager walk out saying he's not happy with things should be nowhere near a football club in the first place. What about the 7 interested parties? They all knew about the protests before they expressed an interest. If it's such a great deal now Mike's fixed everything wrong with the club, they'll be fighting over themselves to get their hands on it. So what are you accusing him of today? Wanting to sell the club or not wanting to sell the club? check the weather outside. might give you a clue When have I ever said I don't think he wants to sell the club?

Shortage of multi-billionaires eager to play Fairy Godmother and splash obscene amounts of money, fractious and quite possibly ungrateful fanbase, global financial meltdown etc etc. Got to face it, we have made ourselves very unattractive with our latest protests etc. In fact, the worst part is that we have made ourselves investable only by exactly the kind of people that we don't want - someone who's only in it for the money. Bollocks has a week of protests which has since dwindled out changed anything. Any potential owner who doesn't realise they're going to get a bit of stick when they don't spend any money on the team after collecting unprecedented amounts of TV money, asking for 3 years up front season ticket revenue, and then having a respected manager walk out saying he's not happy with things should be nowhere near a football club in the first place. What about the 7 interested parties? They all knew about the protests before they expressed an interest. If it's such a great deal now Mike's fixed everything wrong with the club, they'll be fighting over themselves to get their hands on it.

If Ashley's done so well - made the club so financially stable, sorted out this and that "behind the scenes", put a great management team in place, etc - why would the club not get sold? Surely someone would be mad not to snap us off his hands before he changes his mind. In three years time under Ashley, we'll "reluctantly" have to sell our top scorer Ranger to Wolves, as you can't hang onto players when a Premiership side comes knocking. He'll have to do a hell of a lot more than make more empty promises (and do it consistently) before I believe Mike Ashley has the clubs best interests at heart. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

I'd be tempted to put Geremi on the wing and play Gutierrez in the centre. It's not like Gutierrez ever crosses the ball when on the wing anyway, and I think his runs in the centre of the pitch would win us a lot of free kicks in dangerous positions/pens.

I would, I don't think he gave a s*** who he sold the club to, but at least he managed to have it up for sale for 2 years without as much disruption to the team. To be fair though, no-one can really know what the intentions of a new owner actually are, they all come out with the same bollocks about moving the club forwards. You can only guess their motives from their previous exploits, and try to see through the spin and look at what they actually do. Technically it was up for sale from 1997 Technically every club is up for sale all the time, for the right price. Hall was actively looking sell up without trying to hide the fact for at least 2 years though, which I think you know is what I meant.

I would, I don't think he gave a shit who he sold the club to, but at least he managed to have it up for sale for 2 years without as much disruption to the team. To be fair though, no-one can really know what the intentions of a new owner actually are, they all come out with the same bollocks about moving the club forwards. You can only guess their motives from their previous exploits, and try to see through the spin and look at what they actually do.

No. Yes. It would take a lot more than him to do that, he'd actually have to spend some money in the transfer market for once. And then that begs the question, if he'd have done that now, why not back when? So you prefer to act like a huffy teenager than think about what might be best going forward for the club? People make mistakes. And thinking Ashley would be best for the club going forward would be one of them. His priorities are clearly profit over performance.

BBC ripping off NO threads. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/7693806.stm I like this defence of the system by Arnesen, without a hint of irony.