OzzieMandias

Least we can hope for, tbh.

Aye, boring every fucker to death with relentless moaning will definitely help us to get the players we need.

The hairstyles of players we may or may not be interested in were much better under the old board. LOL, I don't think Role Model is intelligent enough to pick up what you are getting at here. Although he/she/it does have a point I would value both your opinions on other stuff outside the old board/new board debate and as long as you avoid kids like role model's threads you can find them. The problem you guys face though is that because of your previous, even these threads will turn out to be old board/new board debates espiecally when Ozzie and Mick turn on their NE5 post detectors. Or when you start stirring it.

So we've apparently been on this one for at least three months.

So you think Shepherd was going to get us back into the Champions League? why do you never respond with intelligence to a complete post mackems.gif Oh the sheer idiot irony! Why are you so scared to answer my question? It was, after all, prompted by your own statement.

So you think Shepherd was going to get us back into the Champions League?

Aye, but it takes a special kind of genius to make them four times out of five.

And no fucker else I'd back my manager as much as possible. Or sack him if I didn't have the confidence to back him as much as possible. Its pretty straightforward. And how much of your own money would you spend on players?

Well yeah but if you put it like that it doesn't help NE5's agenda. what agenda ? You must be the only one on the forum who doesn't know.

Well yeah but if you put it like that it doesn't help NE5's agenda.

He'll be fearing for QPR in a minute.

Two bald men fighting over a comb, tbh.

Wince.

Drunk again?

This seems to have become fact based on nowt as far as I can see. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/feb/01/sport.comment

Yeah, if Abramovich doesn't get where he wants to in the next couple of seasons with Scolari, and having shelled out another £100 million or two for a few more galacticos, I can also see him losing interest. But he's not going to get out of there without writing off hundreds of millions of quid.

It seems some want and expect instant results on and off the pitch even though we've only done that once and even then we couldn't sustain it. The daft thing is that our past limited success (we won nothing) has been paid for by Ashley yet others are given the credit. Ashley paid for the stadium expansion plus £30-40 million which was spent on players. He'll probably now get blamed for buying Luque as he's paid for him. Aye, well obviously the correct thing for Ashley to do is buy loads of players the business can't afford (it doesn't matter if they're crap or not because the spend alone will say "ambition") and then eventually sell off to someone richer who will pay for his profligacy. There aren't many of those, of course. Maybe Bill Gates or the Sultan of Brunei will develop an interest in football. What 1.8 billion? There's at least 30 billionaires with more money than Ashley in Moscow alone. Many dozens in London as well. Aye, Abramovich had put £580 million into Chelsea before the summer spending began. He could spend around ten times that much and still have more wealth than Ashley. My point was simply that there are no more orders of magnitude to step upwards, simply gradations among the super-rich. I take your point. Roman is in a whole other league tbf. £12.8 billion. If you start to look closer at assets you can probably double that. His ability to spend and desire to do so are probably unmatched. There are a handful of other people in the world who are comparably rich, but there's no upgrade from there. He represents the peak of money flowing recklessly into the game, as far as I can see, although he could yet step up his own spending. But in general, football won't get any more inflated that this. Madness to expect anyone to match his expenditure. Starting from a base at least as strong as ours was at Bobby's peak -- the very best we've been in the last decade was where he began -- and looking at the club as a plaything rather than a business, he's thrown well over half a billion quid at the problem and still hasn't won the Champions League. Someone said upthread that he was now in a position to start earning on that investment. Bollocks, frankly. As for Thaksin, he's throwing money at Man City in the hope of quick success because he's trying to buy popularity and respect in Thailand. His spend is a fraction of Abramovich's, but he's already impatient at the lack of results. Not a situation anyone here should be envying, as it all completely depends on his caprice.

It seems some want and expect instant results on and off the pitch even though we've only done that once and even then we couldn't sustain it. The daft thing is that our past limited success (we won nothing) has been paid for by Ashley yet others are given the credit. Ashley paid for the stadium expansion plus £30-40 million which was spent on players. He'll probably now get blamed for buying Luque as he's paid for him. Aye, well obviously the correct thing for Ashley to do is buy loads of players the business can't afford (it doesn't matter if they're crap or not because the spend alone will say "ambition") and then eventually sell off to someone richer who will pay for his profligacy. There aren't many of those, of course. Maybe Bill Gates or the Sultan of Brunei will develop an interest in football. What 1.8 billion? There's at least 30 billionaires with more money than Ashley in Moscow alone. Many dozens in London as well. Aye, Abramovich had put £580 million into Chelsea before the summer spending began. He could spend around ten times that much and still have more wealth than Ashley. My point was simply that there are no more orders of magnitude to step upwards, simply gradations among the super-rich.

It seems some want and expect instant results on and off the pitch even though we've only done that once and even then we couldn't sustain it. The daft thing is that our past limited success (we won nothing) has been paid for by Ashley yet others are given the credit. Ashley paid for the stadium expansion plus £30-40 million which was spent on players. He'll probably now get blamed for buying Luque as he's paid for him. Aye, well obviously the correct thing for Ashley to do is buy loads of players the business can't afford (it doesn't matter if they're crap or not because the spend alone will say "ambition") and then eventually sell off to someone richer who will pay for his profligacy. There aren't many of those, of course. Maybe Bill Gates or the Sultan of Brunei will develop an interest in football.

FYP.

Obviously none of us know whether it will work. The forum currently seems to be divided between those who hope it will, and those who have written it off before it's even really begun.

Agree with this post 100 percent.

That's an oxymoron. Don't let your petty fued with NE5 cloud your view here Ozzie. Highlighting a small part of my text, where I maybe could have added a word like "largely" for clarity does not prove my point wrong. Only a complete idiot would suggest that the old board did not back their managers in the transfer market. Which is probably why our debts were so large. That's an ozziemoron. Aye they backed their managers in the transfer market except when they didn't back their managers in the transfer market – such as in the summer of our last chance at the CL before the drawbridge got pulled up -- and you'd have to be stupid or a liar to argue otherwise.

That's an oxymoron. Blah blah. Highlighting a small part of my text, where I maybe blah blah blah Only a complete idiot would suggest that the old board did not back their managers in the transfer market. Which is probably why our debts were so large. It's the "undeniably" bit I have problems with. Shepherd "backed his managers" sometimes. In reality the spend went up and down wildly. In the period most comparable to where we are now -- Bobby's first couple of seasons -- Shepherd "backed" his only decent managerial appointment with less than was splashed on the rest of them. There certainly wasn't a Robert or Owen every season, though I suppose there was often a Cort, Viana, Marcelino or Luque and they all cost a lot too.

That's an oxymoron.