OzzieMandias

I think Whelan's having trouble telling the difference between the boardroom and the directors' box.

Well, at least either Liverpool or Chelsea are out.

Club insider disagrees with supporters who have much less information than he does. Gosh, how extraordinary.

All this nonsense because I used the expression "brief flirtation".

But my point concerned a bigger picture. Glad to hear it. You also have all the excuses down pat. Fact remains, though, that Shepherd spectacularly failed to build on our brief flirtation with the Champions League.

We was in Europe consistently and among the elite teams in England. Ok i will come at this from a different angle what could Shepherd have done more in Sir Bobby's campaign to 'sustain' a challenge? I remember one season when we was top at the start of December, sounds like a club running well to me Did he need to employ a Director of Football, spend more on youth? just what buddy, you have got me very curious. Strengthened a team that had lost a lot of its swagger after the Man U 2-6 ahead of the Partizan game? Handled the end of Robson's reign more intelligently? Not appointed Souness? Not thrown so much money at Souness? Not borrowed more money to deal with the effect of earlier borrowings? Not appointed Roeder? Generally, also, yes, throughout the old board's reign we should have paid a lot more attention to developing players, and had some kind of better scouting set-up that might have seen us not spend quite so much money on dross (you're always going to have signings that don't work out, but we really did waste a lot of money on players such as Marcelino, Luque, Viana, Boumsong...). We were also always crap at handling succession, with wild swings of approach and style from one manager to another. Whatever, the fact is that the old board failed to build a sustainable set-up. Alas, Ashley is currently making precisely the opposite mistake -- looking for long-term sustainability while neglecting the short-term.

Perhaps, but I think people are at the stage where panic is the only course of action. Well I wouldn't say that panic is ever the right response. Even if the two managers mentioned - Ketsbaia and Martinez - were willing to come in the present situation and their clubs were willing to release them right now (both long shots), they'd be just as big a risk as sticking with Kinnear, and probably an even greater one. The idea, expressed later in the thread, that things can't possibly get worse really is borne of panic. There has been so much upheaval at the club this season that a further change right now is the last thing we need.

Yeah, we were unable to sustain a challenge. One season in the Champions League. Since then it's been downhill all the way. Not as far downhill as Leeds, nor as fast a descent. But in rough outline it's a similar story. That was my point.

I'd agree that Temuri and Martinez are the kind of names we should be looking at for a long-term managerial appointment, however I doubt that appointing either right now would make much sense in terms of battling relegation. If we have to bring in a fireman, Venables seems a better option. And if the letter is genuinely intended as something that might persuade Ashley of its viewpoint, then it would be much better if it wasn't written in such a self-important, patronising, point-scoring tone.

We had a brief flirtation with the Champions League, which might be called success, but we were unable to sustain a challenge at that end of the table. That might be termed failure. We borrowed large amounts of money to throw it at the problem. This did not work. Now we are paying the bill.

Same thing, then. You're just a jaded consumer complaining about the product. Not really. I?m an addict with one very dodgy supplier. Not like shopping at all. No doubt you have some logical reason for supporting NUFC that has nothing to do with endorphin or serotonin. Yep, it's my home town club, and it's a lifelong interest I share with friends and family. Fuck all to do with brain chemistry.

This final paragraph kind of hints at the alternative to Ashley's strategy, which is a speculate-to-accumulate policy of forking out for established players in the hope that you can then recoup the outlay by success on the field. Aside from the fact that we have Leeds as an example of what can happen with a run of bad results, is this a strategy that can work in the present climate ? With the gap between the top four and the rest being so large, and the huge cost, in fees and wages, of attracting the best players to a non-Champions League team, you could easily end up spending £50 million and end up with a team that's in the relegation zone. Even a few years ago, it was a risky strategy, but now it seems completely unrealistic. I get bored of Leeds being trotted out as a cautionary tale to everyone in the league. One example of a club that speculated and failed....but let's not forget they are still living to tell the tale. "Doing a Leeds" isn't the end of a club. It's highly likely they'll be in the same division as us next year ffs, even with all our frugality. What we did in the 90's shows that speculation works. The same as Villa are doing now. Look at the bottom five.... Newcastle Portsmouth Blackburn Middlesbrough West Brom What have they got in common? None of them have a net spend of more than £6m over the past two years. Look at the next nine up... West Ham Man City Wigan Fulham Bolton Tottenham Sunderland Hull Stoke Only Bolton and Wigan have managed to get in this position with a net spend less than £10m in 2 years. In football, the speculators DO accumulate. Current league position is dependent on spend over the previous 2 years? Even if the league table continues to reflect those positions at the end of the season, the myriad of interconnecting factors that determine league position are far more complex than just something as simplistic as that. We should have spent more money in January, you dont need a statistical fallacy to persaude anyone of that. Yeah, I've not done a thesis on it, found the Spearman's rank correlation coefficient or owt. Interesting trend though, no? And I did 2 years, because that's how long Wor Mike has been here. In that it tells us we needed to spend more money in January? We didnt really need it to know that. bobyule did. He said we could easily do a Leeds if we spent more. I was just pointing out Leeds are the exception. Not the rule. I'm sure there's another club that spent a load of money on players, had a brief flirtation with the Champions League some time ago, and is now struggling as a result of overstretching themselves in the attempt to "speculate to accumulate". What are they called again? It's on the tip of my tongue. Begins with an "N"... Not that brief. We were in Europe 8 years out of ten before Big Mike arrived. They managed a couple of years. I spoke of the Champions League. We were in that once about eight years ago, and one other time about 12 years ago. Since the Champions League began in 1997, only 6 English clubs have qualified for it and played in it. What do you think of the fact that 85 clubs have had NO "flirtation" with the Champions League ? The Champions League began in 1992, not 1997. Seven English clubs have qualified, not six. But you're correct, surprisingly, that 85 clubs have never been involved in it -- which means that you can't subtract six from 92. And our brief flirtation is still a "brief flirtation". Seven clubs have qualified but only 6 took part. Everton finished 4th when Liverpool won the competition and replaced them as holders. I'm not surprised you don't know this, as you have pretty much most of the time shown yourself to know nothing. Are you saying the 85 clubs that haven't even had a "brief flirtation" with the champions league have been better run than us when we had a "brief flirtation" with it, or are you standing by you comment - in my sig - that "anyone with a 100m quid to spare would make a better fist of the job than the previous club". ? I don't expect a constructive sensible reply, but you might surprise us all. I wasn't counting Everton, for the very reasons you outline. You forgot Blackburn Rovers, however. That's because you are mistaken about the year in which the Champions League was launched, as I have already pointed out.

If he's worried about commercialisation he should switch to another fucking sport, never mind another club.

Ashley is tearing the heart out of NUFC. Basically the only thing left worth supporting is the name. Where's the pride in that? Because we are worse than we once were? What is taking away that was there before? What else would you support other than the name? Players come and go, same goes for fans, managers and owners, the name is all that ever stays. A concept, a philosophy, the embodiment of cultural pride? Who knows, but people don?t support a collection of letters. Word meanings change. Like Lilywhites. For a long, long time it sort of stood for ?good old fashioned sporting values?, then it was bought by you-know-who and virtually overnight there were pictures of Anna Kornikova?s arse all over the walls. An improvement you might say, but for the people who cared about lilliwhites(sic) it marked the end of a love affair. So, for you, the club is a bit like a department store, and now you'd rather go and shop at Mackems & Spencer instead because you prefer their advertising? how many people have came on here and said its like any other business ? Hardly any at all.

Same thing, then. You're just a jaded consumer complaining about the product.

Ashley is tearing the heart out of NUFC. Basically the only thing left worth supporting is the name. Where's the pride in that? Because we are worse than we once were? What is taking away that was there before? What else would you support other than the name? Players come and go, same goes for fans, managers and owners, the name is all that ever stays. A concept, a philosophy, the embodiment of cultural pride? Who knows, but people don?t support a collection of letters. Word meanings change. Like Lilywhites. For a long, long time it sort of stood for ?good old fashioned sporting values?, then it was bought by you-know-who and virtually overnight there were pictures of Anna Kornikova?s arse all over the walls. An improvement you might say, but for the people who cared about lilliwhites(sic) it marked the end of a love affair. So, for you, the club is a bit like a department store, and now you'd rather go and shop at Mackems & Spencer instead because you prefer their advertising?

We had a good manager, now we don't simple as. Ashley is gambling big time and it's down to luck, not skill if he wins. How ironic that our Managing Director runs a casino. Running a casino isn't a gamble. The odds inevitably favour the house.

Incredible.

I agree. I reckon he'll end being worth the £1.5m or whatever it is though, I was more commenting on the transfer fee (if you include Taylor's market value). The fee was £6m minus whatever Taylor was valued at. If Taylor turn out to be good it means we effecively got peanuts for Charlie. If he turns out to be crap we just have another crap player on the books. Glass well and truly half-empty, eh?

Aye, I bet NUSC were in John Anderson's ear telling him to lie for them. So it was a bit like the "Ashley-Wise ~Outt!" banner on the Monument? Yep, unless you're seriously suggesting John Anderson is stirring the pot at NUFC for his own gains? Bet he's planning to take over the world, evil genius that he is. Who is he, anyway? Seriously? Go hang your head Oh, him! I just read it like he was some member of the NUSC committee or something! Still think that rumour is bollocks, like.

Aye, I bet NUSC were in John Anderson's ear telling him to lie for them. So it was a bit like the "Ashley-Wise ~Outt!" banner on the Monument? Yep, unless you're seriously suggesting John Anderson is stirring the pot at NUFC for his own gains? Bet he's planning to take over the world, evil genius that he is. Who is he, anyway?

Aye, I bet NUSC were in John Anderson's ear telling him to lie for them. So it was a bit like the "Ashley-Wise ~Outt!" banner on the Monument?

Well, I'm sure that spreading daft rumours around the region will be no end of help in getting involved in the ownership of the club and participating in the decision-making process.

This Can anyone , who i will not verbally abuse, explain to me which person came up with that statement about taking a stake in the club? A privately owned club with no shares issue. Are they saving up £250 million? A private business can sell any amount of equity at any price it wants. A public company can not control the price of that equity, other than through performance. If Ashley wanted the money (and the grief) he could give them a share. Which brings us to the "owned by a man they spend the entire time slagging off" bit.

This Can anyone , who i will not verbally abuse, explain to me which person came up with that statement about taking a stake in the club? A privately owned club with no shares issue. Are they saving up £250 million? At £10 each they'd only need 25 million members, but they'd have to stop blowing the subs on keyrings.