Parky

Ashley = Scam artist. The end.

Ashely is evil. FACT.

In that interview he just comes across as a buffoon.

Because it is being used to pay wages and installments for players like Owen and Luque. Should have completed due fucking dilligence then, perhaps? I'm sick of hearing about the debts and shit he didn't know about tbh. If I buy a car without checking the thing and later find out it needs a shedload of work doing to it that's nobody's fault but my own. Exactly.

Aye, ageist i know, but i think you're right in that he doesn't understand fully, the impact KK has had on this club. Understand fully?!! I don't think he has the first fucking clue. Calling Keegan a coward is a disgrace.

Well said and with a nice comic touch.

Are you a new member to this board? YOu only registered last year.

Do you know much about KK first time with us?

What have they been doing since christmas then?

It was a rhetorical question. The intention is admirable. The problem is that you need to give a manager with outstanding judgement the final say on whether he thinks he can get those young players playing well, and then also a manager of outstanding skill to actually get them out onto the pitch doing it. Arsenal have both those men in Arsene Wenger. We do not. Nor did we in Kevin Keegan if some (including Mike Ashley and his staff) are to be believed. Which begs the question, why bring him back? That's not one I expect you to answer either btw, seeing as you've already said it was a mistake. The fact is that pretty much all successful models rely on the man who organises and coaches the team having the authority to determine his own pool of playing staff. Totally agree. ...and even if clubs do try and precis a model like Arsenal's (setting aside the manager issue) they need to hire the right calibre of top tier management...Wise just isn't that. As SBR asked, "What exactly are his qualifications for the job"?

Well done to those two and they are completely right.

The man is clearly insane.

Sounds familiar. One of the reasons it works in Europe is that they prefer collective decision making. Whereas in out football culture we prefer one man to go with his vision.

Leeds were pretty successful on the pitch... ...for a while. Their wages to income ration was over 90% near the end. Ours has peaked at 68% or thereabouts. The corollations end there. They also didn't actually own some of their top players and were loaning them under some strange financial instrument, therefore losing out on real re-sale value iirc. Either, what happens on the pitch "takes precedence over all other activities" or it doesn't. Leeds is a perfect example of why that statement is fundamentally flawed. What happens on the pitch is very important, but not to the detriment of the future of the club. You clearly know nothing about what happened at Leeds. You clearly are not understanding what I'm saying. Leeds was an example of where what happened on the pitch was given "precedence over all other activities" and it was to the detriment of that club's future. How they went about doing that, is neither here, nor there. Here's a better example of over loading player spend to the detriment of the club... "The property of the Westfalenstadion, originally belonging to the city of Dortmund and later sold to the club Borussia Dortmund, was sold to a real estate trust in 2002 when the club was facing serious financial problems. Borussia Dortmund intended to repurchase the stadium gradually up to 2017, but was not able to pay the regular rates in spring 2005." Are you trying to filibuster me? What relevance has anything you've posted in response got to do with the point I was making? Filli what?!! Dortmund overspent so much on players they couldn't cover it and sold the stadium and leased it back. Wildly careless and a solid example of mishandling of over loading player purchases against other factors.

Leeds were pretty successful on the pitch... ...for a while. Their wages to income ration was over 90% near the end. Ours has peaked at 68% or thereabouts. The corollations end there. They also didn't actually own some of their top players and were loaning them under some strange financial instrument, therefore losing out on real re-sale value iirc. Either, what happens on the pitch "takes precedence over all other activities" or it doesn't. Leeds is a perfect example of why that statement is fundamentally flawed. What happens on the pitch is very important, but not to the detriment of the future of the club. You clearly know nothing about what happened at Leeds. You clearly are not understanding what I'm saying. Leeds was an example of where what happened on the pitch was given "precedence over all other activities" and it was to the detriment of that club's future. How they went about doing that, is neither here, nor there. It's a simple thing Indi they did it the wrong way. Leeds isn't a de facto test case for all these scenarios at all. I think perhaps you are concentr At Chelsea there is a structure of sorts involving Kenyon and the one they nicked from Spurs forget his name. Your point stands however where Arsenal and Man U are concerned. O'Neill doesn't brook any interference.

Leeds were pretty successful on the pitch... ...for a while. Their wages to income ration was over 90% near the end. Ours has peaked at 68% or thereabouts. The corollations end there. They also didn't actually own some of their top players and were loaning them under some strange financial instrument, therefore losing out on real re-sale value iirc. Either, what happens on the pitch "takes precedence over all other activities" or it doesn't. Leeds is a perfect example of why that statement is fundamentally flawed. What happens on the pitch is very important, but not to the detriment of the future of the club. You clearly know nothing about what happened at Leeds. You clearly are not understanding what I'm saying. Leeds was an example of where what happened on the pitch was given "precedence over all other activities" and it was to the detriment of that club's future. How they went about doing that, is neither here, nor there. Here's a better example of over loading player spend to the detriment of the club... "The property of the Westfalenstadion, originally belonging to the city of Dortmund and later sold to the club Borussia Dortmund, was sold to a real estate trust in 2002 when the club was facing serious financial problems. Borussia Dortmund intended to repurchase the stadium gradually up to 2017, but was not able to pay the regular rates in spring 2005."

Leeds were pretty successful on the pitch... ...for a while. Their wages to income ration was over 90% near the end. Ours has peaked at 68% or thereabouts. The corollations end there. They also didn't actually own some of their top players and were loaning them under some strange financial instrument, therefore losing out on real re-sale value iirc. Either, what happens on the pitch "takes precedence over all other activities" or it doesn't. Leeds is a perfect example of why that statement is fundamentally flawed. What happens on the pitch is very important, but not to the detriment of the future of the club. You clearly know nothing about what happened at Leeds.

Good point. We can perhaps see that KK was getting edgy with regard to getting some positions properly covered sharpish.

Leeds were pretty successful on the pitch... ...for a while. Their wages to income ration was over 90% near the end. Ours has peaked at 68% or thereabouts. The corollations end there. They also didn't actually own some of their top players and were loaning them under some strange financial instrument, therefore losing out on real re-sale value iirc.

Well don't post in it then. Simple.