Unbelievable

Looks like a nasty situation is about to get even nastier, tbh. That could be a bit of a media own-goal there for Ashley & Co. I preferred that post pre-edit! Bunch of f***ing c***s. How has this structure ever been clear since 16th January? Lying, slimy toads. the question is wether it was clear to keegan. It wasn't even clear to Ashley himself apparently.

They've had a couple of days to think about their next step and this is what they've come up with?! It's awfully clear now why Keegan had no choice but to resign. Good luck to them finding a top class manager willing to work on those terms..

What a bunch of muppets.. They haven't a clue when it comes to managing a football club.

you simply can't count chelski and the current man city in with everything else 'cause they're outwith it now - the man city you mention in your post were not, they were in that amount of debt by pissing money away on s**** and just prior to being taken over last week were loaning money from their former chairman to finance players iirc, and they acheived nothing anyways you're right, and i've not disagreed that a level of debt is not a bad thing per se but i do not see the relevance of even mentioning fulham and 'boro to make your case, it's getting to the point where you'll not really be able to mention liverpool soon unless something unforseen happens again my point is we're not at the citeh/chelski levels of billionairre ownership and to not cap a debt expediture on players is the way to be playing leeds unless we hit the jackpot and get the next ferguson or wenger O mention the debts of these other clubs because some people on here seem to think we were on the brink of receivership and we have Ashley to thank for Newcastle United still being around at all. It's a myth surrounding the Ashley takeover, because our debts were comparable to a large number of other Premiership clubs (including the ones you mention) and unless I have missed something all these clubs are still around, aren't they?

Macca, serious question, are you aware that nearly every club, and certainly every top 4 club has debts of hundreds of millions? It is partly why they are where they are in the league table. Anybody who thinks a club can seriously challenge for the title without debts or huge external investment is living is cloud cuckook land? I believe you have said elsewhere you would rather support a mediocre NUFC that balances the books well than a NUFC that spends more than its incomings in order to put a realistic challenge in to challenge the top clubs? Whilst I accept that position, I don't think many people will agree with you, and I also believe that you are missing a point: with all the billionaires looking to get in on the action the value of Premiership clubs is now less related to its incomings than ever; it's all about the profile of the club and whether it is perceived as being big and successful. When Ashley took over the general consensus was that in order to make money in this sort of venture you need to invest first (accrueing debts if you will). If Ashley hasn't grasped this concept he is well at risk of being in for a shock, especially if this running the club like a business lark will result in us relegated a few years down the line as the likes of QPR will invest heavily to take over the Premiership places left by clubs that will have failed to react to the changes quickly enough. It's a rat race now, and you need to race along to be in with a chance of winning, whether you like it or not.. As this is the crux of your argument ill address this point. Would i be mistaken to think that these clubs were pretty stable and successful before they acquired thse massive debts? Chelsea are "in debt" to Roman, Man U have been left with Glaziers debt, Liverpool with H+G and Arsenal have the stadium debt having all been reasonably successful for many years now. Nufc on the other hand have a fair bit of debt topped off with huge wages without the same level of success OR stability, its hardly a fair comparison in my eyes. Its as though that if Ashley hadnt paid off the debt and in fact added to it, as well as the "roll royce" wages you'd be happier and appeased irrespective of the future of the club. To me what spurs and arsenal have done is what we should be doing, improving the quality of the squad whilst splashing out on big signings but still keeping financially stable, as well as bloodeing younger hungrier players. You don't seem to be aware of the extent of the situation at all. Here's some reading material for you: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/columnists/davidbond/2294763/Credit-crunch-could-hurt-Premier-League-clubs.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2301797/Deloitte-football-finance-review-Club-by-club-Premier-League-analysis.html As I expect there is every chance you will not be arsed to do some investigation into this issue as it doesn't tie in with what you want to believe allow me to make it easier to digest from you by putting a few quotes here: => does that make a 70m debt for Newcastle United in 2007 so extraordinary? Regarding Aston Villa: Regarding Man City: Regarding Fulham: I'm sure after seeing those figures you will agree that Newcastle United was not exactly in a unique debt situation here when compared to their (business) competitors? All in all it's all well saying it will all end up dramatically for those clubs involved and billionaires are cheating when they "buy" their way to titles, but ironically you could just as well claim the top clubs have so far "borrowed" their way to titles and trophies; care to explain to me how that is any less cheating than depending on external investment flat out? stand by for the usual culprits to argue with that now i'm no financial wizard, and i do buy into the "manageable debt" theory of running a football club but i have to point out a few things (which i stand to be corrected on): manu's debt didn't exist in such depth until the glazers i'm ignoring chel$ki for obvious reasons liverpool cannot afford to back their manager for the players he wants nor finance their new stadium due to their debt villa & man city have acheived precisely f*** all more than us despite their debt, same for west ham, fulham and middlesbrough really (minus one cup) so what point, exactly, are you trying to make here? you guys have pulled this debt rabbit out of your arses so often people are starting to believe you can only achieve success with debt, and it is not true as arsenal have proven it's not enough just to say debt "imo" as arsenals debt is very different from manu's and liverpools, for example What's so different about Arsenal's 300+ million pound debt? We aren't saying you can only achieve success through debts, but you can only realistically hope to achieve (i.e. increase the chance of) succes if you are willing to spend like the big spenders. It appears the big spenders spend big through billionaire benefactors or through accruing debts, so it´s got to be either one or the other and for those who like to take the moral highground, one is no more cheating than the other. Not a difficult concept is it? People go on about Arsenal being some special case, and they are, yet also in contradict seem to think the ´Arsenal way´ is a realistic, achievable alternative road to success for us. It isn´t, which is exactly what makes it so special. see above post - arsenal's success has been acheived in spite of the debt not because of it, the debt (to my knowledge) is similar to what we had on expanding the stadium, a very different proposition to spending 300m on players i'm sure you'll agree as you've ignored them i'll take you back to villa, man city & 'boro - what do you propose for them? despite their debt levels they're basically not that much further forward than us (man city pre-windfall) so do they just keep spending and spending chasing the top four? what? you tell me, these are your examples and i'm not sure what point you're making in bringing them up 'cause frankly they're not exactly good adverts for debt in football are they? Yes, they keep investing to reach their goals, be it to qualify for European fooball or even just to stay in this league. If they don't they run a big risk of not reaching these goals, falling behind and maybe even relegation. Of course that doesn't really apply to Man City anymore, which is the other part of my point: with billionaires flogging to the Premiership left, right and center who cares about an extra few (tens? hundreds?) millions debt, when it guarantees the owner the club maintains a high profile and it will remain an attractive propositions for potential buyers as well as an interesting experience to its fans/customers. I called it a rat race, and that's exactly what it is at the moment. Do I think it's a good thing? No. Do I think we can do anything about it except to race along? No. Guess that makes it a catch 22 rat race.

Macca, serious question, are you aware that nearly every club, and certainly every top 4 club has debts of hundreds of millions? It is partly why they are where they are in the league table. Anybody who thinks a club can seriously challenge for the title without debts or huge external investment is living is cloud cuckook land? I believe you have said elsewhere you would rather support a mediocre NUFC that balances the books well than a NUFC that spends more than its incomings in order to put a realistic challenge in to challenge the top clubs? Whilst I accept that position, I don't think many people will agree with you, and I also believe that you are missing a point: with all the billionaires looking to get in on the action the value of Premiership clubs is now less related to its incomings than ever; it's all about the profile of the club and whether it is perceived as being big and successful. When Ashley took over the general consensus was that in order to make money in this sort of venture you need to invest first (accrueing debts if you will). If Ashley hasn't grasped this concept he is well at risk of being in for a shock, especially if this running the club like a business lark will result in us relegated a few years down the line as the likes of QPR will invest heavily to take over the Premiership places left by clubs that will have failed to react to the changes quickly enough. It's a rat race now, and you need to race along to be in with a chance of winning, whether you like it or not.. As this is the crux of your argument ill address this point. Would i be mistaken to think that these clubs were pretty stable and successful before they acquired thse massive debts? Chelsea are "in debt" to Roman, Man U have been left with Glaziers debt, Liverpool with H+G and Arsenal have the stadium debt having all been reasonably successful for many years now. Nufc on the other hand have a fair bit of debt topped off with huge wages without the same level of success OR stability, its hardly a fair comparison in my eyes. Its as though that if Ashley hadnt paid off the debt and in fact added to it, as well as the "roll royce" wages you'd be happier and appeased irrespective of the future of the club. To me what spurs and arsenal have done is what we should be doing, improving the quality of the squad whilst splashing out on big signings but still keeping financially stable, as well as bloodeing younger hungrier players. You don't seem to be aware of the extent of the situation at all. Here's some reading material for you: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/columnists/davidbond/2294763/Credit-crunch-could-hurt-Premier-League-clubs.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2301797/Deloitte-football-finance-review-Club-by-club-Premier-League-analysis.html As I expect there is every chance you will not be arsed to do some investigation into this issue as it doesn't tie in with what you want to believe allow me to make it easier to digest from you by putting a few quotes here: => does that make a 70m debt for Newcastle United in 2007 so extraordinary? Regarding Aston Villa: Regarding Man City: Regarding Fulham: I'm sure after seeing those figures you will agree that Newcastle United was not exactly in a unique debt situation here when compared to their (business) competitors? All in all it's all well saying it will all end up dramatically for those clubs involved and billionaires are cheating when they "buy" their way to titles, but ironically you could just as well claim the top clubs have so far "borrowed" their way to titles and trophies; care to explain to me how that is any less cheating than depending on external investment flat out? stand by for the usual culprits to argue with that now i'm no financial wizard, and i do buy into the "manageable debt" theory of running a football club but i have to point out a few things (which i stand to be corrected on): manu's debt didn't exist in such depth until the glazers i'm ignoring chel$ki for obvious reasons liverpool cannot afford to back their manager for the players he wants nor finance their new stadium due to their debt villa & man city have acheived precisely f*** all more than us despite their debt, same for west ham, fulham and middlesbrough really (minus one cup) so what point, exactly, are you trying to make here? you guys have pulled this debt rabbit out of your arses so often people are starting to believe you can only achieve success with debt, and it is not true as arsenal have proven it's not enough just to say debt "imo" as arsenals debt is very different from manu's and liverpools, for example What's so different about Arsenal's 300+ million pound debt? We aren't saying you can only achieve success through debts, but you can only realistically hope to achieve (i.e. increase the chance of) succes if you are willing to spend like the big spenders. It appears the big spenders spend big through billionaire benefactors or through accruing debts, so it´s got to be either one or the other and for those who like to take the moral highground, one is no more cheating than the other. Not a difficult concept is it? People go on about Arsenal being some special case, and they are, yet also in contradict seem to think the ´Arsenal way´ is a realistic, achievable alternative road to success for us. It isn´t, which is exactly what makes it so special.

Because of one manager resigning? We're a bit of a mess to say the least at the moment but everything is fixable. I'm going to sound like a broken record here but if people are going to keep using it as an insult then I'll correct their stupid mistake - Ashley isn't cockney, and most Southeners or indeed a large portion of Londoners aren't either. Some people seem to have a problem understanding that and then get really offended when someone makes a generalised statement about Geordies or the North. Technically speaking he didn't say Ashley is a cockney did he? I could say the king of Swahili "comes across as a big headed cockney to me", which is not to say I mistakingly thought Swahili to be a part of cockneyland.. Just pulling your leg a little Role Model, but are you a big headed cockney by any chance, who takes offense to being compared to Ashley?

HTT, surely not!? But how about the majority of people on here with their rose tinted glasses who didn't accept any questionning of Ashley's motives even though it was at that point completely unclear what his plans with the club were and a perfectly healthy thing to do rather than just bend over in awe? A case of "the grass is greener" if ever I saw one, and that's not me condoning the previous owner before anybody starts. Unbelievable, you're a good poster and I enjoy your posts but I don't think there is any need for that at this moment to be honest because those who were supportive or just plain blind as it may now appear of which I include myself at times because I've been happy to play down the views of you and others and sing a positive note or two since Ashley took over, but you know as well as I do, most of it came from wishful thinking, hope and a desire for things to work rather than down right 100% blind faith. We've all been duped and conned and I know I feel silly and quite angry. Remember we're on the same side. Fair enough. Sorry, didn´t mean to single you out or do an ´I told you so´ gesture and I actually have a lot of respect for people who have come out and said although they were previously in hopeful support and anticipation but after recent events (transfer window activity and Keegan debacle) admit they have been underwhelmed and feel let down rather than holding on to their initial view for dear life, the likes of Wullie and Dave these recent days. I´m not even sure if I would have surfaced the way they and you did if the situation had turned out in such a way that my initial scepticism had been proved to be premature and plain wrong, so kudos for coming out and telling it how it is.

HTT, surely not!? But how about the majority of people on here with their rose tinted glasses who didn't accept any questionning of Ashley's motives even though it was at that point completely unclear what his plans with the club were and a perfectly healthy thing to do rather than just bend over in awe? A case of "the grass is greener" if ever I saw one, and that's not me condoning the previous owner before anybody starts.

Macca, serious question, are you aware that nearly every club, and certainly every top 4 club has debts of hundreds of millions? It is partly why they are where they are in the league table. Anybody who thinks a club can seriously challenge for the title without debts or huge external investment is living is cloud cuckook land? I believe you have said elsewhere you would rather support a mediocre NUFC that balances the books well than a NUFC that spends more than its incomings in order to put a realistic challenge in to challenge the top clubs? Whilst I accept that position, I don't think many people will agree with you, and I also believe that you are missing a point: with all the billionaires looking to get in on the action the value of Premiership clubs is now less related to its incomings than ever; it's all about the profile of the club and whether it is perceived as being big and successful. When Ashley took over the general consensus was that in order to make money in this sort of venture you need to invest first (accrueing debts if you will). If Ashley hasn't grasped this concept he is well at risk of being in for a shock, especially if this running the club like a business lark will result in us relegated a few years down the line as the likes of QPR will invest heavily to take over the Premiership places left by clubs that will have failed to react to the changes quickly enough. It's a rat race now, and you need to race along to be in with a chance of winning, whether you like it or not.. As this is the crux of your argument ill address this point. Would i be mistaken to think that these clubs were pretty stable and successful before they acquired thse massive debts? Chelsea are "in debt" to Roman, Man U have been left with Glaziers debt, Liverpool with H+G and Arsenal have the stadium debt having all been reasonably successful for many years now. Nufc on the other hand have a fair bit of debt topped off with huge wages without the same level of success OR stability, its hardly a fair comparison in my eyes. Its as though that if Ashley hadnt paid off the debt and in fact added to it, as well as the "roll royce" wages you'd be happier and appeased irrespective of the future of the club. To me what spurs and arsenal have done is what we should be doing, improving the quality of the squad whilst splashing out on big signings but still keeping financially stable, as well as bloodeing younger hungrier players. You don't seem to be aware of the extent of the situation at all. Here's some reading material for you: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/columnists/davidbond/2294763/Credit-crunch-could-hurt-Premier-League-clubs.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2301797/Deloitte-football-finance-review-Club-by-club-Premier-League-analysis.html As I expect there is every chance you will not be arsed to do some investigation into this issue as it doesn't tie in with what you want to believe allow me to make it easier to digest from you by putting a few quotes here: => does that make a 70m debt for Newcastle United in 2007 so extraordinary? Regarding Aston Villa: Regarding Man City: Regarding Fulham: I'm sure after seeing those figures you will agree that Newcastle United was not exactly in a unique debt situation here when compared to their (business) competitors? All in all it's all well saying it will all end up dramatically for those clubs involved and billionaires are cheating when they "buy" their way to titles, but ironically you could just as well claim the top clubs have so far "borrowed" their way to titles and trophies; care to explain to me how that is any less cheating than depending on external investment flat out?

Macca, serious question, are you aware that nearly every club, and certainly every top 4 club has debts of hundreds of millions? It is partly why they are where they are in the league table. Anybody who thinks a club can seriously challenge for the title without debts or huge external investment is living is cloud cuckook land? I believe you have said elsewhere you would rather support a mediocre NUFC that balances the books well than a NUFC that spends more than its incomings in order to put a realistic challenge in to challenge the top clubs? Whilst I accept that position, I don't think many people will agree with you, and I also believe that you are missing a point: with all the billionaires looking to get in on the action the value of Premiership clubs is now less related to its incomings than ever; it's all about the profile of the club and whether it is perceived as being big and successful. When Ashley took over the general consensus was that in order to make money in this sort of venture you need to invest first (accrueing debts if you will). If Ashley hasn't grasped this concept he is well at risk of being in for a shock, especially if this running the club like a business lark will result in us relegated a few years down the line as the likes of QPR will invest heavily to take over the Premiership places left by clubs that will have failed to react to the changes quickly enough. It's a rat race now, and you need to race along to be in with a chance of winning, whether you like it or not..

Pity Ashley didn't have the £100 million he had to pay off the debt, I wonder what Keegan would have been able to do with half that? Crazy how the man who has put more of his personal wealth into NUFC than anyone becomes more despised than those who went before him and took money out. He really has fecked up ! Also funny that when Bobby Robson was stabbed in the back there was so little uproar but when Keegan walks (maybe rightly so) there is huge uproar. It's funny how things work in football. I'm sure you'll be happy for him if it turns out in the next few weeks he will have made a 100% profit on us in just over a year..

Hehe, that has just put the image in my head of Ashley standing in front of a burning house trying to flog it to random people passing by..

"Discussions" were "ongoing" for three days..? Yeah right, more like they sent Keegan a letter full of "practical suggestions on how to move forward [...] Any concerns, just give us a call" which took two days to arrive at the Keegan residence courtesy of Royal Mail and seconds after opening it he made the LMA issue the statement that he had resigned.. What a shambles..

His own statement very clearly says it's neither of those options, it's option 3: the club brought in players he didn´t want. There´s no argument here for me: the board fucked up massively and Keegan had no choice but to walk.

Oh dear.. Only just found out about this news as I've been away for the evening.. Gutted that it's come to this.

Could be Everton now with kenwrights statements. Which statements are these?

How do you know how much their owners will be willing to splash next season? From what they've done this transfer window I would suggest it's pretty clear they have set their sights high and are willing to invest accordingly. Oh, and didn't they spend a lot last season as well, only the level of player they could attract was lower because they had only just come up and were prime candidates to go down. As they continue to progress they will be able to attract a higher profile of player, and seeing as they've spent big in every major transfer window since their takeover I would like to know what makes you think it will stop soon? we'll see. maybe they'll be able to match it next year maybe not, but the year after, and the one after that? we may well be hampered in our spending because we're giving a lot of very average players a lot of money, but what happens when they want to replace the ferdinands, the malbranques and the dioufs (who are not brilliant players, although they are good) and find they dont want to go because they are being paid 60K a week a piece and no one will pay them that much. they don't have a bottomless pit of money. still clinging to this cliche-driven drivel that has been used for ages to undermine certain personalities - who had a damn sight more idea than you care to admit, or are too dumb to realise. Fact is, the mackems themselves are one of the biggest clubs in the country, and if they get their act together are just as capable as us of continuing and improving a good situation if they create one and getting in among the other top clubs. After all, they are now following their example, instead of scratting around the lower leagues and free transfer market for bargains. Co-incidentally, our own rise when we moved ahead of them followed exactly the same change in policy that they have now adopted, rather than one adopted by a club like pompey who spend decades in the lower leagues then get lucky for a year or two. If you don't get it by now, you never will. Unbelievabe. I would have thought the actions of Keegan over the last day or two would have woken people like you up at last. you can hide behind phrases like "cliche driven drivel" and that last sentance if you want, but its not going to change my point of view. i dont think sunderland's business plan is going to work, and i think they'll run out of money in 2-3 years, if they continue with their current stragtegy. thats my point of view and its not going to change. maybe i'm wrong but we wont find out for another 2 years and you certainly dont know the answer. Well, I'll tell you something else. If Mike Ashley is still owner of the club in 2 years time, and doesn't change his attitude, neither will we. But, as has been said "spending money doesn't guarantee success but it improves your chances" and if the mackems are more prepared to speculate than us, they have a damn sight better chance of succeeding. Have you actually been in this world and saw how they have performed for the last 20 years with a chairman who "put the business first" Which has been pretty much exactly the same as NUFC were for previous decades ourselves.......... their chairman didn't put business first. they outspent us a few times on s***,peyter reid spent a lot. the plan is if you spend ,spend clever,if you spend and go backwards often, you are doing it wrong. Please tell us how many times we qualified for europe and how many times we didn't ? And also tell us how many clubs attracted more supporters through the gates ? Then tell us how many of those paid their money to a club they considered was going backwards ? Then tell us what you think of Mike Ashleys ticket sales policy, and how many are going through the gates ? please tell me if we looked like qualifying for europe under souness,roeder and allardyce ? were we progressing ? or going backwards ? HELLO...HELLO...HELLO...HELLO.........thought not. Funnily I seem to remember we did actually qualify for Europe in that period? Must have been dreaming I guess.

How do you know how much their owners will be willing to splash next season? From what they've done this transfer window I would suggest it's pretty clear they have set their sights high and are willing to invest accordingly. Oh, and didn't they spend a lot last season as well, only the level of player they could attract was lower because they had only just come up and were prime candidates to go down. As they continue to progress they will be able to attract a higher profile of player, and seeing as they've spent big in every major transfer window since their takeover I would like to know what makes you think it will stop soon? we'll see. maybe they'll be able to match it next year maybe not, but the year after, and the one after that? we may well be hampered in our spending because we're giving a lot of very average players a lot of money, but what happens when they want to replace the ferdinands, the malbranques and the dioufs (who are not brilliant players, although they are good) and find they dont want to go because they are being paid 60K a week a piece and no one will pay them that much. they don't have a bottomless pit of money. If those three players you mention had signed for us this transfer window countless people would have been quite happy I imagine. Hell, they're happy with Danny Guthrie and Bassong who are a damn sight less proven in this league.. I think Guthrie and Bassong are very shrewd acquisitions and Jonas and Coloccini excellent ones. Sorry but the only player Sunderland have signed who I think would have been good for us is McCartney, none of the others are any better than squad players we already have. You think we have someone better than Malbranque in the middle of the park?

Depends how murky the air was. Guess so.. Does anybody know where these discussions are taking place?

To come back on topic, how long will these "discussions" go on for? It's apparently been three days of meetings already about this whole affair. One would like to think that clear the air talks wouldn't have to last the best part of a working week?

Top notch heh? Don´t you think that´s a bit over the top. The only one who arguably has been exceptional has been Jonas. Collocini is clearly adapting and is of proven quality so will hopefully come good, the other two are merely promising and shouldn´t even be in our first team at the moment.. For the amount we have spent and who we really could buy, then yes I'd say they are top notch. Guthrie and Bassong are great prospects, the Argies look great to me so far. Not saying they are world class but they great signings for us. Question really is what was Wise's involvement... and how much that will be missed. All right, so you meant to say they were top notch signings, not necessarily top notch players (yet)? Even then I wouldn't agree, but at least could understand. Bassong worries me most, because of what the fans of his old club had to say about him when the news broke that he left: they basically saw him as our equivalent of Bramble.. Here's hoping he comes through though.

Top notch heh? Don´t you think that´s a bit over the top. The only one who arguably has been exceptional has been Jonas. Collocini is clearly adapting and is of proven quality so will hopefully come good, the other two are merely promising and shouldn´t even be in our first team at the moment..

How do you know how much their owners will be willing to splash next season? From what they've done this transfer window I would suggest it's pretty clear they have set their sights high and are willing to invest accordingly. Oh, and didn't they spend a lot last season as well, only the level of player they could attract was lower because they had only just come up and were prime candidates to go down. As they continue to progress they will be able to attract a higher profile of player, and seeing as they've spent big in every major transfer window since their takeover I would like to know what makes you think it will stop soon? we'll see. maybe they'll be able to match it next year maybe not, but the year after, and the one after that? we may well be hampered in our spending because we're giving a lot of very average players a lot of money, but what happens when they want to replace the ferdinands, the malbranques and the dioufs (who are not brilliant players, although they are good) and find they dont want to go because they are being paid 60K a week a piece and no one will pay them that much. they don't have a bottomless pit of money. If those three players you mention had signed for us this transfer window countless people would have been quite happy I imagine. Hell, they're happy with Danny Guthrie and Bassong who are a damn sight less proven in this league..

Good post. Up until a few days ago everyone on here seemed happy with the way it was going, of course we would have preferred to have spent more money and got cover for our fullbacks but one thing that wasn't in doubt was the quality of the players that had come into the club, so much so that people expect Xisco to be class just because of how good the others have been. Without this set up would we have known that Jonas was prepared to buy out his contract? Or would we have managed to not only find a bright young lad like Bassong but manage to get him here on a trial so the manager can get a good look at him? Someone has been on the ball behind the scenes to make these things happen and it would be a shame to lose that. The only good thing about getting rid of Wise would be an end to the constant media circus claiming everyone is stabbing each other in the back. there were plenty of people not happy with the way we were heading. a couple of posters, afar, unbelievable and me got a lot of criticism for highlighting concerns earlier in the window. i don't think Wise has anything to do with getting in Jonas or Bassong, that was probably more to do with the likes of Vetere & Fucillo (scouting) and Jiminez & Llambias (negotiations). There's no reason why the former two can't be retained as scouts as keegan has worked with scouts all his career. I'm not sure Keegan's ire is necessarily directed at the former two, more likely the latter two. while they got in a few players they also missed out on plenty more leaving us with a good number fewer than what we needed. i bet when they missed out on Modric, despite having the owner of his club and his agent in the city, that Keegan was pissed off but was given assurances that things would change. they didn't so Keegan got upset. though there could be more to it than that, or it could be different. The comment about the way it was going was in regards to the recruitment team and the standard of players we've pulled in, although feel free to give yourself another self congratulatory pat on the back for showing concern about not getting enough players in. that's not like you Baggio. disappointing that you resort to crap like this because you can't construct an adequate response. Because you misunderstood the point I was making? As I said, people were disappointed that we didn't strengthen further but nobody had a problem with the set up and the quality of player being brought in, it's only since Keegan threw his toys out of the pram that people seem outraged at the likes of Dennis Wise. Are you having a laugh? You had a problem with the amount of money spent didn't you? That and Jonas must be s*** because he didn't cost any money. I've explained this countless times, but since you're slow I'll try it one more time: I had concerns about the quality of player brought in, and still have. Jonas looks a shrewd buy, so I'll give them that (I didn't at the time, but NOT because he came on the cheap), and Collocini is a class defender and they splashed the cash on him, so happy about that, but all the others are of a very low profile for a Premiership intent on going places. They're gambles so to speak, and with what Ashley & Co have been telling us we were entitled to expect more, much more. It's been mostly talk and precious little action with regards to transfer targets. I'm glad you're happy, I'm not and it seems Keegan is also less than impressed. I've said that we needed more bodies in, I also said that I'm happy with the quality of players that have come in too. I'm guessing Keegan would agree with both comments. Re the quality of players I have been and still am of the view that we have brought in a number of youngsters who are squad players for now with the potential to be important first team players in years to come and two players who actually improve the first team. We have also let 3 or 4 first team players go. All in all the squad quality has improved slightly. Well, slightly is not enough for me. I've said time and time before I believed we didn't need a lick of paint, but some major reconstruction instead. We didn't get it, but have seemingly been more concerned about balancing the books. When Keegan everybody was convinced he wouldn't have come unless promised a major warchest for this summer transfer window. Well, seemingly he didn't get it, and I for one wouldn't be surprised if this entire affair is at least because of Keegan's general disillusionment with the transfer business conducted along with general frustration about the lack of communication between him and the team assigned with bringing the right players in for him to fulfil his and the club's ambitions..