Colos Short and Curlies

It's not a bad thing at all, but it's only a good thing if those savings in interest payments are reinvested into the club. Would that include ploughing money in the academy and in signing youth players? Not aiming this at anyone in particular, just moving a point along but to a lot on here reinvestment in the club ONLY seems to involve signing players for the first team now. I would suggest (as indeed many others also do) that we need investment into the here and now and also for the future. It would appear that the future has been the boards priority right now.

I must admit I'm struggling to think of another scenario where you would plan on having someone temporarily in charge for 3 weeks. Ashley still hopes to tempt Keegan back?

needed defending after lying to us all that he had the final say after milner went. I put this somewhere else, but.... Wise 'Kev we're selling Milner' = no final say. Wise 'Kev, we can bring in Schweinsteiger (or another) but we think that may leave us overloaded with wingers. Villa have offered £12m for Milner, we reckon that its a good deal and the German is a cracking player'. Kev 'Well Ok, I'm not best pleased with losing Milner but if I can get a better player in (Schweinsteiger) then lets do it. = Kev gives the go ahead and has not lied in any one of his statements up to September 1st. Shame the replacement never came in. Scenario 2 is highly plausible, and would give weight to Keegan going Ape s*** when he was told that Owen or Barton could be sold but we had better replacements coming in. but thats not what he said in the press conference. he said HE decided and HE has the final say on ALL comings and goings. But if he agreed to selling Milner in order to bring in Schweinsteiger then he would have had the final say on both the sale and purchase. i repeat,he said all comings and goings and how is it the final say ? ie why did he walk out if he had the final say ? Lets put it another way. IF we had signed Schweinstieger after the Milner deal had been completed would you agree that selling Milner has allowed the club to move forward - which is what Keegan had claimed. And IF Wise had put the proposition to Keegan that it was a good deal all round and Keegan agreed to the sale and purchase then he is having the final say on the two transfers? It was a cock up that Milner was sold before a replacement was secured (assuming the Schweinsteiger story is true), but that doesn't mean that players were sold behind his back. It is of course as likely (if not more) that Keegan agreed to the sale of Milner PROVIDED that Schweinsteiger was bought. As he obviously wasn't the walkout could have been over this and then the last minute purchases of Xisco and Gonzales who Keegan didn't think would replace Milner. do you think he would walk because the club tried but failed to get a replacemnet. my reading of the situation was that keegan left because the deals were being done (in and out) without his authority. It may have been the final straw, yes. (if as I said he had agreed to sell Milner providing a replacement was secured) The club are saying one thing, Keegan another. They both probably believe that what they are saying is correct as it is human nature to polarise views regarding your own situation. The truth is in the middle somewhere, we'll probably never know exactly where but its almost certain that significant blame can be attributed to both parties, which is why his leaving was such a protracted drama

1) When he bought the club, he bought the debt as well. Paying it was the most economical choice. 2) He's only brought in two players we know can lift the first team, one of them at a club record price for a defender. 3) Ameobi, Smith and Duff are still here; Carr and Ramage were out of contract. The "deadwood" would then be Rozenhal, Emre, Faye and Milner, two of them first team players -- one of which hasn't been replaced. That's pretty fucking progressive. 4) "Will lead us to be able to spend better in the future". And I'm sure they'll promise to do so, yet again. I'm willing to bet that they won't. 1) its about time someone put this shit argument to bed. whether it was the most economical choice or not, the club was in a fuck load of debt which is now gone (unless he's just moved the debt around, but i've seen no evidence for this, but would love someone to show me why these rumours are here). that is a good thing he has done for the club, and if he didn't know about the debt (a mistake, but undestandible one, considering hall apparently only gave him a limited time to look at the books) then it will have affected his spending plans. whether it was the most economical choice or not is irrevilent, it still saved the club and it still would have effected his spending plans. 2) wow, just wow. are you using the fact we've spent the club record for a defender as an argument AGAINST ashley? and you never KNOW how a transfer will turn out, but the 2 argies seem to be very astute signings so far. add to that what we've seen SO FAR of bassong and guthrie, they will both definately imrpove the squad if not the first team. so our recruitment team gets a vote of confidence from me. 3) Smith is only here because Keegan wanted him, Shola is only here because he failed a medical and Duff, i'm not sure, maybe we didn't want to sell, maybe we couldn't find any buyers, but with our squad it may be a good thing he's still here. 4) i dont know whether they plan to spend in the future or not, but i'm willing to bet they will spend if they can find the players to spend it on. I'll jump in here, debt is actually often the cheapest way to finance a business in the short term (I bet Man Utd pay out less in additional interest on their debt than they used to pay out in dividends), however as Ashley was presumably looking to maximise the available resources in the club it made sense to lose the interest. Whether it is in the form of an equity injection or a loan between himself and the club is irrelevant as we are owned by one body so to him the value of the club is the same, it is only now more efficient. I really can't see how anyone can say its a bad thing that the interest payments have been removed from the club

needed defending after lying to us all that he had the final say after milner went. I put this somewhere else, but.... Wise 'Kev we're selling Milner' = no final say. Wise 'Kev, we can bring in Schweinsteiger (or another) but we think that may leave us overloaded with wingers. Villa have offered £12m for Milner, we reckon that its a good deal and the German is a cracking player'. Kev 'Well Ok, I'm not best pleased with losing Milner but if I can get a better player in (Schweinsteiger) then lets do it. = Kev gives the go ahead and has not lied in any one of his statements up to September 1st. Shame the replacement never came in. Scenario 2 is highly plausible, and would give weight to Keegan going Ape s*** when he was told that Owen or Barton could be sold but we had better replacements coming in. but thats not what he said in the press conference. he said HE decided and HE has the final say on ALL comings and goings. But if he agreed to selling Milner in order to bring in Schweinsteiger then he would have had the final say on both the sale and purchase. i repeat,he said all comings and goings and how is it the final say ? ie why did he walk out if he had the final say ? Lets put it another way. IF we had signed Schweinstieger after the Milner deal had been completed would you agree that selling Milner has allowed the club to move forward - which is what Keegan had claimed. And IF Wise had put the proposition to Keegan that it was a good deal all round and Keegan agreed to the sale and purchase then he is having the final say on the two transfers? It was a cock up that Milner was sold before a replacement was secured (assuming the Schweinsteiger story is true), but that doesn't mean that players were sold behind his back. It is of course as likely (if not more) that Keegan agreed to the sale of Milner PROVIDED that Schweinsteiger was bought. As he obviously wasn't the walkout could have been over this and then the last minute purchases of Xisco and Gonzales who Keegan didn't think would replace Milner.

needed defending after lying to us all that he had the final say after milner went. I put this somewhere else, but.... Wise 'Kev we're selling Milner' = no final say. Wise 'Kev, we can bring in Schweinsteiger (or another) but we think that may leave us overloaded with wingers. Villa have offered £12m for Milner, we reckon that its a good deal and the German is a cracking player'. Kev 'Well Ok, I'm not best pleased with losing Milner but if I can get a better player in (Schweinsteiger) then lets do it. = Kev gives the go ahead and has not lied in any one of his statements up to September 1st. Shame the replacement never came in. Scenario 2 is highly plausible, and would give weight to Keegan going Ape s*** when he was told that Owen or Barton could be sold but we had better replacements coming in. but thats not what he said in the press conference. he said HE decided and HE has the final say on ALL comings and goings. But if he agreed to selling Milner in order to bring in Schweinsteiger then he would have had the final say on both the sale and purchase.

What is the facisination with 'grapevines'? two yoghurt pots and some string maybe, but I've never tried making a telephone type contraption with grapevines http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/heard-it-through-the-grapevine.html Shit a brick there is a website for everything!

needed defending after lying to us all that he had the final say after milner went. I put this somewhere else, but.... Wise 'Kev we're selling Milner' = no final say. Wise 'Kev, we can bring in Schweinsteiger (or another) but we think that may leave us overloaded with wingers. Villa have offered £12m for Milner, we reckon that its a good deal and the German is a cracking player'. Kev 'Well Ok, I'm not best pleased with losing Milner but if I can get a better player in (Schweinsteiger) then lets do it. = Kev gives the go ahead and has not lied in any one of his statements up to September 1st. Shame the replacement never came in. Scenario 2 is highly plausible, and would give weight to Keegan going Ape Shit when he was told that Owen or Barton could be sold but we had better replacements coming in.

What is the facisination with 'grapevines'? two yoghurt pots and some string maybe, but I've never tried making a telephone type contraption with grapevines

So what you are saying is that the club is worth £235m compared to £135m before Ashley 'lent £100m' to repay the debts? Surely if you replace one debt with another the value stays at £135m. If someone comes in and offers £235m Ashley would still only really receive £135m as the £100m is his anyway

I have obviously no way of knowing what Keegan knew and when he knew it. I believe (and believed) he lied when he said it was his decision to sell Milner, but the reason for it is different: he needed to show that he was in charge. But if it was always part of the deal that he wouldn't be in charge of signings, it would make no sense to claim so. The difference between the lies is that Keegan's protect his authority, which is being undermined by the board, whereas Ashley's are fraudulent. But if the story is to be believed Keegan was told that Schweinsteiger was all but signed but Milner would have to be sold to fund the deal. This would fit with Keegan saying that it was his decision to sell Milner as it would allow the club to move forward and we should judge the sale after the deadline. Most managers would agree to selling Milner for £12m if they were getting Schweinsteiger in return - hence it is not a lie to say that it was not his decision. It may not have been his idea and he may have been happy to keep Milner if Schweinsteiger had not been available, but if you are offered something and accept it then it is your decision. What happened after that however is another story!

Surely Setanta don't have exclusive coverage of the FA Cup final do they? I thought that the FA Cup final was protected by law for being free to air

Have you met him personally? As a player, Poyet always showed up in the games against us, and certainly seemed like someone who thrived under pressure. FYP

In such case I have no doubt whatsoever such a dispute would have been referred immediately to Llambias. It's all speculation, but very good points are being made by the likes of KaKa, Edd, mrmojo et al - and not being adequately refuted. mrmojorisin75 suggests: So can Keegan's supporters please come up with something other than "It's all speculative bollocks" or "It's all Wise's fault"? UV asks Well, yes and no. He said (with some cheekiness I'm sure) "I didn't have a brochure this time. It came like a whirlwind it is like one of those Lastminute.com holidays! There was no brochure I just came." Secondly, Wise had yet to be appointed, though one must assume negotiations with Wise had already commenced. So no, Keegan was not explicitly told that the hierarchy was Ashley -> Llambias -> Wise -> Jimenez -> Keegan. However, if you think Ashley and Mort hired Keegan without telling him about the imminent appointment of an executive director (football), that Ashley and Mort duped Keegan into believing he would be an old-school manager with sweeping powers while secretly planning to go in exactly the opposite direction, well... I'll take Kaka's logic over yours thanks. raconteur, very few people want to hear this, instead they prefer the following word associations: cockney, lies, wise, southerner, season tickets, 3 years, fabrication, conspiracy KK, no wrong, innocent, victim, beyond criticism i'm still astounded that after years of shepherd leasing warehouses to the club, ridiculing the supporters publicly, taking massive dividends despite deteriorating results on the pitch (etc...) was affored so much time and never once was there a talk of a boycott of club products, marches, none of this shit...before anyone starts about balancing the books i'll point you to bobby robsons first 2 seasons for a parrallel on spend and manager...also to the sacking of bobby as well really is anyone gonna look me in the internet eye and tell me this doesn't just boil down to a nice bit of dirty regionalism against a southern owner and nasty dennis? anyone? really? if you want answers to that you just have to look over the board, probably hundreds of counter arguments. specifically the inaccurate "robson's first two seasons" stuff which has been responded to quite a few times. and i'm not sure what people are getting at by bringing up the Robson sacking as it is some defence of this board. are people saying "well shepherd did it so ashley is allowed to as well"? that's bloody daft if so. i criticised shepherd for his undermining of robson and handling of his departure, i'll do the same for Ashley in this equivalent situation. either you do it for both or neither, otherwise it's being blindly partisan. shite like "KK, no wrong, innocent, victim, beyond criticism" does everyone on here a disservice. fuckof johhny that's pish to be honest i don't offer the robson book balancing as an excuse for ashley but it's the only reasonable thing i can see for people kicking off so much, the lack of spending...if it's not about the club not spending money on players then people should stop spouting the 3 years ST shit no? otherwise what're they fucken complaining about on that score? this lies shit is unreal - KK fucken lied to you all summer saying everything was OK didn't he? that he had a wondeful relationship with everyone at the club, there was money to spend etc... or were his lies OK 'cause he loved the club but ashleys/nasty dennis's are not OK for what reason exactly? 'fuckof johhny that's pish' are you drunk or something? the Robson thing is rubbish because he was allowed to spend more once we had a cash windfall by way of the stadium expansion. if you want to look for an equivalent development today you look at the £18m extra TV money we received at the end of last season compared to the one before, along with the £6m saved in debt repayments. considering we broke even in our last accounts that should give us over £20m net to spend, or, if we want to be ambitious and use next season's income in advance, as many other clubs do, at least £40m. Mackems have spent something like £70m since coming up, and transfer inflation in general has spiked - overall summer spending gone from something like £265m to £540m in 2 years. yet we've spent little to nothing since ashley arrived. personally i find facts like this more important than shite like 'fuckof johhny' which you apparently find so superior. as for Keegan lying, maybe he was putting on a brave face and trying to battle through the undermining and ridiculing as Robson did before him, and thought that while the window was open there was a still a chance he could leverage his position to get what we wanted for the club. or, as many assumed earlier in the window, that he had some sort of working relationship and consensus that disintegrated - perhaps because the two sides were squabbling over limited funds, and this came to a head in the last days of the window. It could also be argued that Robson was 'allowed to spend' once he had removed the high earners such as Maric and Ferguson from the wage bill. As for the spending next seasons income in advance or 'where has the TV money gone', we still owe £25m on past transfers - there goes the £20m that you suggest should be available. I'm not Shepherd bashing or Ashley licking - although I am on record on this board supporting the model which it had appeared we were following up to deadline day, but I do find it funny how very similar events (such as Robsons spending constraints in season 1 and 2 vs Ashleys spending or Keegan walking due to constraints on his spending in 96 (needing to raise £6m to cover the shearer fee by selling Ferdinand) and now) can be twisted by both sides to appear to be completely different, when in fact they show numerous key similarities

i see your argument, and i raise you asprilla, ginola, albert, hottiger, srnicek and peter beardsley Those were pretty well known players as well though, with the exception of Hottiger possibly. I take your point though, obviously that does disprove the nationality theory. Didn't Hottiger have a strong world cup in 94? I remember thinking who? when Albert signed though!

Were there highlights of the Andorra match? Setanta are after £1million for the highlights to this game. They paid £5m for the rights and wanted to recoup 20%. Apparently only 1million people have access to the game so they've paid £5 per viewer. Out of business in a year with spending like that!

I'm sure our two new Argies would love that! ;-)

Basically it is a choice of: 1) Someone with a good track record who won't like the boardroom's transfer policy. 2) Someone experienced who is purely mediocre. 3) Someone unproven or with limited experince, but with some potential. 1 and 2 will fail, at least option 3 gives the club a chance of having something to smile about. There are tons of better options that Gus Poyet for option 3. Name them. Roberto Martinez I'm not discounting Poyet as an option, he interests me somewhat as a coach. But having witnessed the buzz about the Swansea team down here and the fact that he is as much a coach as a traditional manager I'm championing Martinez as our new First Team Coach assuming Ashley stays. If we get taken over I would fully expect a 'big name' to come in.

True, but then aren't rich companies usually successful companies, meaning they are already making a return for the people in charge so they are less likely to want to sell? Successful companies reinvest the majority of their cash or have it earmarked for comitted projects. The return to the shareholders is usually known in advance as they will have a policy of xp per share or a % of profits (which they will budget for almost to the £1 if they are run well). The small net spend (god I hate that phrase) would suggest that there was no urgency to reinvest this cash upfront and Ashley would struggle to take it out of the club as what we make we have spend on the running of the club in recent years. You are right though, to grow a company you need to generate money, but having a massive cash balance sitting there doing nothing would suggest that he is open to a takeover.

The cash forms part of the clubs assets and therefore value (we'll assume the balance sheet valuation model is being followed as it is the easiest to understand - what we own less what we owe = value of the club). Say Mr Indian wants to buy the club he sees that we have a balance sheet value of £300m. Potential value adding components: Stadium Players Cash Mr Indian does not want to pay cash for cash as he would be paying £1+ for each £1 bought. Therefore he tells Mr Ashley to take the cash out of the club in the form of a bonus, reducing the value of the business to £200m (say). Ashley now has the £100m in cash and £200m from the sale of the club = the £300m valuation as above. Mr Indian has only paid £200m. Everyone is happy. Therefore the moral of the story is that cash rich companies are ripe for takeovers

Apart from scoring against us every bloody time he played against us, has Poyet actually done anything anti-Toon? I can understand the Wise Hating as he was an odious little twerp on the field and only got a way with 99% of his actions due to him being a 'cheeky cokney chapey', but I can't remember Poyet doing anything other than his job against us. And if that is the case, would people turn down the chance to buy Ronaldo or Rooney? Lets not forget also that Shearer had a big part to play in the 2-2 draw at Ewood which helped the Premier League title got to Old Trafford in 96. From what I've seen of Poyet as a coach/number 2 he seems to have his head screwed on and a decent mind for tactics. My only reservation would be how close he and Wise are as I believe in having people working alongside you who are willing to challenge you when they think your ideas are wrong

Still think Martinez will be sounded out. And I think he would be a success

People keep talking about this bit as if it makes Ashley such a top bloke, when in reality all it has done is add to the value of the club he owns 100%. He bought us for 130 million or whatever, then paid off 80 million debt, so as far as he's concerned the club is now worth 210 million, probably more as being debt free is a big selling point - it isn't as if he's shelling out his own pocket just because he's a lovely bloke. He's also made a net profit on transfers, so where is all the TV and season ticket money currently sitting? Most of it will go on wages

I wonder why he didn't throw a "wobbler" after being pissed on by Villa last season, I'd say that was worse then losing to Chelsea or Arsenal. What about 1-5 at home to Man U or 3-0 away to Liverpool, Everton away wasn't any better. The characteristic of the Chelsea and Arsenal games were that they were a bringing down to earth after a period of optimism. We were starting to believe again, and then we were put in our place. Like I said, I think Keegan is vulnerable to mood swings. Just a bit ! It's stating the obvious, isn't it? But it's amazing how many people are leaping to the conclusion that when Keegan walks out, it must be the fault of the person who has upset him. During his first spell, it was very important for him to feel that the momentum was always upwards. He banned the word 'consolidation', didn't he. We were able to keep things going forward, because the Halls were pumping more and more money in for transfers. Keegan didn't stay once the money became tighter. Once things dip, even if things are dipping from quite a good position, he gets discouraged very quickly. Keegan always wants to be the best he can be. He retired from playing when he got outpaced by (I think) Hansen He left as manager first time as being a plc would hamstring him He left England when he couldnt raise the players game He's left us now when the structure is hindering him. He doesn't settle for being good at whatever position he is in, he has to be able to be the best that can possibly be in his current scenario

He's right more often than his bloody critics on here, thats for sure. He makes good points on a regular basis. I think he isn't taken as seriously as he should due to his dismissive attitude of those who question him or have an opposite viewpoint. He's been tarnished as being a Fred fanboy, when actually I don't think he is that as such, he just sees the club going in a direction he doesn't like