sicsfingeredmong

 

 

Post 94/Harding's cash contribution: I'd say that we've still matched, or even bettered, Chelsea's spending in the transfer market - and that's despite having a period which also conincided with the share floatation ie. a point in time where it was apparent that transfer spending & expenditure would become tight. This is a significant reason identified as to why Keegan walked away/why he couldn't take the team any further. While i was in favour of the form & fitness induced departure of Asprilla at a later time is it not a coincidence that Keegan's successor immediately broke-up an attacking quartet in one swoop only to paper over the cracks with an unproven Dane.

 

I'd say that Dalglish was the one manager who didn't get the backing other managers received, yes. But circumstances dictated this at the time. But apart from that every other manager has been sufficiently backed. In the case of Souness, had we not taken the multi-year sponsorship from Northern Rock in one hit - to fund Owen's transfer, we would have been relegated. So yes we weren't in a financially stable position - ie. akin to pre-Abramovich Chelsea - but would you have preferred? Football in the Fizzy Pop League - and that's what we would've copped had it not been for Owen's goals two years ago, & a sharp rise in what was managed debt ie. the SJP redevelopment debt getting out of control when the club would most likely not have filled the seats required to pay it off  ie. a drop off in season tickets sold.

 

Mort, and blokes like yourself for that matter, can bleat on about the accounts. They're probably not that pretty and let's not forget that Real Madrid is what you'd call a 'bank-financed rolling debt machine', and we've got to solely take Mort's word for it as the accounts are no longer accessible for the everyday punter, but would they/Ashley have been interested in buying a club struggling in the First Division - ie. after we'd sold our best players - with a 1/3 or 1/2 empty stadium to show for that position.

 

You speak of Bates' reign, in comparison with Shepherd's, in glowing terms................. yet it's taken two major cash injections, from separate investors, to bail them out of the s****. What our board has been guilty of, and this has been the case on two occasions & this relates to transfer expenditure, is not strengthening the team when a strong platform had been built, and this is due to timing isn't it. But these 2 missed opportunities were brought about by two significant chapters as illustrated - one of which involved the club directly, the other - Douglas Hall's management of C.Hall - being an external influence yet the said companie's downfall had far reaching implications on our club's finances.

 

 

With regards to that signature ie. the Golden Era between 94 and 03. How many league titles, or better yet how many top 3/4 finishes did they secure in that time, afterall league placing is the true barometer in which to judge a club/team's impact over a period, as opposed to an incompetantly managed club such as ours.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dalglish spent almost £16 million more than he brought back in through sales, he was backed more than any manager other than Souness under Shepherd so I think the theory that the floatation of the club caused us financial restraints goes straight out of the window.  Dalglish spent something like £26 million while bringing in £10.4 million.

 

Sir Bobby was backed the least per year, then comes Gullit followed by Roeder.

 

As for the figures produced by Chris Mort, he hasn't really said anything about how much debt we had that we didn't already know, the only thing he's really added is that he thought that we were going to have problems repaying the debt.

 

Yesterday I read something you posted about the Hall's selling shares for £4.5 million, they did do that but they deferred half of that amount, they didn't take it all in one go and they also sold the shares to the club for a fraction of what they could have sold them for on the open market, they sold them for 27.1p at a time that the market valued them at 40p each.  They could have sold 25% less shares on the open market and raised the same amount of cash and received the total amount a year earlier.

 

Cameron Hall was in a very poor position but I'm not sure how that effected the club although the football club did guarantee a loan which Cameron Hall had taken out, obviously the club would have taken a financial hit if Cameron Hall had of defaulted on the loan but I don't think that happened.

 

The bold section i've highlighted - in reference to Dalglish's reign - is what i refer to 'not being sufficiently backed'. Timing in the transfer market is everything isn't it Mick, especially when the groundwork has been layed during the previous season.

But Dalglish's first transfer market here, after we'd secured a CL finish, saw him railroaded when he should've further builded. Purchasing the likes of Barnes, Rush and giving an opportunity to his son - and these guys were the replacements at varyign stages for Ginola (Barnes: creative predominantly left-sided/central midfielder) Ferdinand and Asprilla (Rush and Dalglish respectively - *smells more of a manager having to use his previous links/history to inexpensively replace players he's had to offload. *That was my opinion then, and this is still the case to this day.

With regards to Halls' share sell-off. Given the financial situation of Cameron Hall at the time, and they needed money quick - C.Hall between 99 and 02/03 experienced a profit-loss turnaround over 100m - they weren't exactly in the power position of strength when negotiating selling terms with the club. Mick, if you look at the accounts which pertain to the period relating to Partizan Summer & payments made out to the Halls on the back of our CL campaign, you'll notice the 'loyalty payments' 'bonuses' and the 'high dividends' so often complained. Those extra payments, minus the dividends of course, partially make-up for the Halls offloading their shares for less than the going rate. I still stand by my argument that more than enough the 01/02 CL revenue ended up in the Halls' pockets, when C.Hall hit the wall financially.

One other thing if Wenger's respective net spend, on a per-yearly basis, works out close to or less than Dalglish/Gullit/Souness/Roeder - ie. our 4 most backed managers according to the popularly used net-spend figure when those bash our total transfer expenditure over the last decade+ - will you be prepared to say that Arsenal similarly don't back their managers.

He's always worn his heart on his sleeve, even so by-product is usually the more conservative supporter demonising him for being too politically incorrect or worse a *'cock' *the brand bestowed upon Bellamy by oh so many.

It's the firebrand character i like. Every team needs one, otherwise the team runs the risk of becoming emotionally stagnant out on the pitch. For all Speed's leadership qualities, and he was the team's unofficial captain imo whereas Shearer was an 'object of worship' hence he was the easy choice for the captain's armband, Bellamy provided the team with an arrogant swagger. That sort of arrogant self-belief is infectious out on the pitch. We missed that in the wake of Bellamy's departure.

Although he isn't as technically gifted as Bellamy, and admittedly they are different style players, i think Barton can reinject that arrogance/swagger back into the outfield.

Sicsfingeredmong

And you seem to forget that Chelsea, prior to Roman stepping in, came within days of having to offload their best players for financial reasons, at that point in time we pretty much on level terms with them in the league.

 

FFS why don't you read the post you are replying to?

 

I'm talking about Hardings cash he invested in 1994 not Abramovic's in 2003

 

And we were not that financially secure when Ashley bought us.

 

In fact Bates and Shepherd left strikingly similar levels of debt

 

It's not as if Chelsea hit a Golden Era prior to Roman's injection of cash.

 

A quote worthy of using as a signature there

 

Apart from winning the FA cup twice, the League cup once, the cup winners cup, the super cup and the charity shield your answer is 100% correct

BTW FWIW I am not Ozzie

 

 

 

 

Post 94/Harding's cash contribution: I'd say that we've still matched, or even bettered, Chelsea's spending in the transfer market - and that's despite having a period which also conincided with the share floatation ie. a point in time where it was apparent that transfer spending & expenditure would become tight. This is a significant reason identified as to why Keegan walked away/why he couldn't take the team any further. While i was in favour of the form & fitness induced departure of Asprilla at a later time is it not a coincidence that Keegan's successor immediately broke-up an attacking quartet in one swoop only to paper over the cracks with an unproven Dane.

I'd say that Dalglish was the one manager who didn't get the backing other managers received, yes. But circumstances dictated this at the time. But apart from that every other manager has been sufficiently backed. In the case of Souness, had we not taken the multi-year sponsorship from Northern Rock in one hit - to fund Owen's transfer, we would have been relegated. So yes we weren't in a financially stable position - ie. akin to pre-Abramovich Chelsea - but would you have preferred? Football in the Fizzy Pop League - and that's what we would've copped had it not been for Owen's goals two years ago, & a sharp rise in what was managed debt ie. the SJP redevelopment debt getting out of control when the club would most likely not have filled the seats required to pay it off  ie. a drop off in season tickets sold.

Mort, and blokes like yourself for that matter, can bleat on about the accounts. They're probably not that pretty and let's not forget that Real Madrid is what you'd call a 'bank-financed rolling debt machine', and we've got to solely take Mort's word for it as the accounts are no longer accessible for the everyday punter, but would they/Ashley have been interested in buying a club struggling in the First Division - ie. after we'd sold our best players - with a 1/3 or 1/2 empty stadium to show for that position.

You speak of Bates' reign, in comparison with Shepherd's, in glowing terms................. yet it's taken two major cash injections, from separate investors, to bail them out of the s****. What our board has been guilty of, and this has been the case on two occasions & this relates to transfer expenditure, is not strengthening the team when a strong platform had been built, and this is due to timing isn't it. But these 2 missed opportunities were brought about by two significant chapters as illustrated - one of which involved the club directly, the other - Douglas Hall's management of C.Hall - being an external influence yet the said companie's downfall had far reaching implications on our club's finances.

With regards to that signature ie. the Golden Era between 94 and 03. How many league titles, or better yet how many top 3/4 finishes did they secure in that time, afterall league placing is the true barometer in which to judge a club/team's impact over a period, as opposed to an incompetantly managed club such as ours.

Sicsfingeredmong

Do you really think finishing in the top 5 for three years in succession  is better than winning the FA Cup or a European trophy or two

Qualifying for the CL twice, based on table position, and with that receiving the CL-related 'financial benefits' and the 'player pulling power in the transfer market'. Then the answer is yes. Anybody can fluke a Cup win, especially the FA Cup in any given year.

 

Lets leave aside the fact we haven't been able to 'fluke' the FA Cup for 50 years

 

We are specifically talking about chelsea after Harding joined the board.

 

The given year for the FA Cup would be 1997 - 3 years after his cash injection.

 

Chelsea won the cup in 1997 and the following season  completed a successful european campaign to win not only the cup winners cup but also the european super cup after beating real madrid in the final

 

And you would swap all that for 3 top 5 finishes?

 

Wasn't Shepherd's fault that the Halls cashed in their chips & raided the club's coffers accordingly during one particular Summer of transfer market inactivity on our part- ie. The Partizan Summer - or that Robson decided that he'd have the team sit back and defend a 1 goal lead against Partizan, a tactic which blew up in his and ultimately the club's face in a big way.

 

Apparently it was the fault of the manager who was starved of funds for his last 18 months .

 

You know the one who got you the successive top 5 finishes in the first place - the ones you'd prefer to collecting trophies at wembley or winning cups in europe.

 

It could never be the fault of an inept chairman who was unable to raise funds for the transfer market until he'd sacked the said manager responsible for the 3 top 5 finishes for the first time in 50 years and appointed a complete dickhead from a lower placed league club in his place.

I'd swap Chelsea's cups for those top 5 finishes, especially the former two of which gave us the opportunity to qualify the CL. I'd also swap Chelsea's Cups for Keegan's accomplishments, you know that manager who you've shat on the past who guided us to within 90 minutes of winning the league.

Back to those 3 seasons - in particular 01/02 & 02/03 - gave us a substantial platform in which to build on. And you seem to forget that Chelsea, prior to Roman stepping in, came within days of having to offload their best players for financial reasons, at that point in time we pretty much on level terms with them in the league. It's not as if Chelsea hit a Golden Era prior to Roman's injection of cash.

I'll ask you a question Ozzie. Was Shepherd responsible for Cameron Hall Ltd being run into the ground by our former no.2, aka. Douglas Hall, during the 3 year span between 99 and 02? The reason i ask is because at about this time the 4.5m share buyback took place - in addition to loyalty bonuses and higher paid out to the The Halls - and if wasn't for Leeds financial plight prior to this share buyback - and i refer to the 4.5m put aside for the Halls - there was a good chance we would not have signed Woodgate. We payed half upfront, and the other half within 12 months of him registering for us so i dispute the myth that the wind changed and Shepherd just refused to back Robson. The Halls' financial plight had the potential to scupper that deal. What sort of level grounded club, financial-wise that is, would sell their best player under the terms we offered them. Shepherd seized an opportunity, based on both club's respective financial situations, and secured a great deal - ie. for Woodgate - with the knowledge that his hands would be tied in the transfer market as explained to you. He wasn't perfect, but he wasn't totally s*** as you point out.

Whereas i've always been of the opinion, and Cameron Hall's accounts & the relevant timelines support this, is that our downturn in transfer spending ran parallel with Douglas Hall's mismanagement of the his families flagship company ie. when the Cameron Hall's accumulated debts became unmanagable. I assume that you're also aware that the Halls family trust cleared a significant portion of their debts.

You seem to forget that the cash used to acquire Buomsong and Babayaro - ie. Clueless' first transfer window, or as you put it thereabouts 'only raised funds for the dicckhead he replaced Robson with - was a transfer market injection that was obtained courtesy of Woodgate's departurr. And what of the 20m+ offer for Rooney in the wake of Woodgate's departure? Was that just fiction, the myth that Manchester United and ourselves worked in conjuction to forcibly remove Rooney from Everton's desperate clutches into Ferguson's waiting arms, or were our numerous bids actually the actions of  a chairman actually backing his manager with the cash that was available at the time?

I still find it amazing that you believe that Shepherd was the bloke responsible for sacking the man who guided us those top 5 finishes. There's a reason as to why the club's major shareholders have a boardmember who as executive decision maker has the power to pull the trigger when needed. Amidst a panic-button driven sacking there was only notable boardmember who was bleating "Robson would've got us relegated".

Huntington left mate.

 

Good post though.

 

I missed that one over the Summer. Shame though, and it pulls apart a section of my argument that Taylor has become to surplus to requirements, as i think he displayed a similar level of potential to that shown by Taylor - when Taylor was handed that first run of appearances during Clueless' reign.

 

you might be thikning of edgar, who impressed in the few games he played, while huntington was combing his hair.

I think it was Edgar - goal scorer as well last season. Mistaken identity on my part.

A bit like Ozzie claiming that Lee played upfront during the Keegan years  :parky:

NE5 I'd rather bump this thread to be honest.

 

Claiming Bates success at Chelsea is totally down to Hardings cash is very silly and helps show how inept Freddie was.

 

IF Chelsea's success is due to the £25 million Harding injected into the club - why didn't fred match this level with the £25 million he got from Northern Rock?

 

To quote yourself

I remember Chelsea before Harding stepped in, they were no better than the mackems, and us at the time for that matter, for a long time with Bates as chairman.

 

Yet they won loads of trophies with this cash while we didn't.

 

How can this be? :sad2:

 

 

I'm sorry for you. I've tried to explain and show you that nobody took this cup you are harping on about seriously, but as you are so desperate to show anything that puts Shepherd in a bad light you wish to consider it important, thats your problem.

 

You are clearly young, and know nothing, and won't even be told anything.

 

How about comparing Shepherd and Hall to the 87 other chairmen who didn't qualify for europe as often as we did ? I'm not really surprised this hasn't sunk in yet.

 

You're the sort of hypocrite who will congratulate Ashley when we win a game under Allardyce but criticise Shepherd for appointing him when we lose a game.

 

Now bugger off. You're a pain in the neck, and boring to boot.

 

Nice bit of waffle there NE5 but I don't believe this thread is about '87 other chairmen'

 

Its about Bates and Shepherd and how Bates managed to achieve more success after a cash injection while Freddie didn't.

 

EDIT PS I'm 42 - the last time anyone thought I was 'young' was in a different millennium 

 

 

well, its a real shame you appear completely unaware of how much improved the club was left by the Halls and Shepherd in comparion to how they found it.

 

Which says something and its quite easy to guess what.

 

Also, how insignificant this cup was that you keep harping on about. Never mind, nobody is worried about it, or was, apart from you.

 

Yes you made your feelings on the various trophies clear at the bottom of page 10 when you wrote:

Don't agree at all with the micky mouse cup analogy. Sorry like. I'd be pleased to win the UEFA Cup or the League Cup, but couldn't give a toss about the Full Members Cup, the Zenith Data Cup, the north east league or even the intertoto for that matter, just so long as we go through to the real competition the next time we are in it.

 

And thus dismissed the only piece of silverware fat fred brought home

 

Now is there any chance of you addressing which chairman used their cash injection most effectively?

 

oh dear.

 

The bit of your post I have highlighted is pretty pathetic for 3 reasons.

 

1 Saying (incorrectly) that 'well, its a real shame you appear completely unaware of how much improved the club was left by the Halls and Shepherd in comparion to how they found it. ' is a moronic point to raise as exactly the same could be said about Chelsea and Bates.

 

2 Your second sentence says that you were wrong in the first one and is therefore invalid

 

3 (My personal favourite amongst the latest line of s**** from you) - to say 'Also, how insignificant this cup was that you keep harping on about. Never mind, nobody is worried about it, or was, apart from you.' is idiotic when you consider its a comparison of what happened AFTER the cash injections.

 

You have just dismissed the FA Cup (twice), the league cup (again), the cup winners cup and the super cup

 

What a clown you are

 

I don't think so. I just can't be arsed with you.

 

As HTL has said, the stupidest comments I ever see, are from people like you who think the chairman of a football club is the person who decides where the cash is spent.

 

Its even more stupid than someone saying that qualifying for the Champions league, qualifying for europe more than any club bar 4, and NUFC achieving 3 top 5 league finishes for the first time in 50 years is "failure". The fact that you don't understand this, tells its own story.

 

As you are so insistent on blaming a chairman for the club not winning the FA Cup, perhaps in your wisdom you could tell us precisely why it is anyone else's fault other than the players for not turning up in 2 FA Cup Finals ?

 

Only an utter clown would make such an absurd insinuation 

 

 

Your tying yourself in knots here with your bull NE5

 

If you can't be arsed with me - why do you quote and reply to my posts - then ask further questions?

 

Do you really think finishing in the top 5 for three years in succession is better than winning the FA Cup or a European trophy or two?

 

Qualifying for the CL twice, based on table position, and with that receiving the CL-related 'financial benefits' and the 'player pulling power in the transfer market'. Then the answer is yes. Anybody can fluke a Cup win, especially the FA Cup in any given year.

Wasn't Shepherd's fault that the Halls cashed in their chips & raided the club's coffers accordingly during one particular Summer of transfer market inactivity on our part- ie. The Partizan Summer - or that Robson decided that he'd have the team sit back and defend a 1 goal lead against Partizan, a tactic which blew up in his and ultimately the club's face in a big way.

Huntington left mate.

 

Good post though.

I missed that one over the Summer. Shame though, and it pulls apart a section of my argument that Taylor has become to surplus to requirements, as i think he displayed a similar level of potential to that shown by Taylor - when Taylor was handed that first run of appearances during Clueless' reign.

Taylor looks set to be 4th choice now, 5th choice if Allardyce signs Edmilson.

 

If it makes him work harder at eradicating his game of basic errors then it's only a good thing. He's still young, unlike Cacapa and Edmilson.

Fair enough comment, because up until this stage - ie. before Cacapa, Rozenhal and Faye's respective arrivals - he's been a guaranteed starter, especially under Roeder. Complacency in Taylor's case may have set in, and with it a 'less than 100% effort to improve' attitude could very well have surfaced. This very same complacency has effected previously overhyped players we've attempted to develop before ie. Dyer and Bramble are notable examples. Taylor, like the two mentioned, has received a similar amount of hot air blown up his arse by previous managers. He's been louded as Newcastle United's 'great white hope'. Youngsters who are tagged with plaudits of such grandiose will either accept the challenge and put the subsequent  work in - ie. young Ronaldo being hailed as the next George Best - or they'll simply rest on their laurels and waste a few seasons, before playing catch-up in their mid-late 20's when they're trying to secure what is often a player's most lucrative contract ie. the one earned before their twighlight years/their 30's.

You could argue that up until now he's been on the receiving end of some pretty s*** coaching, under Souness and Roeder the back four never defended with shape/they just ran out on the pitch with little instruction. It's bound to have some sort of negative effect on a centrehalve's progression.

Also in Taylor's favour is the season of lost development, and by that i refer to the year that was effectively flushed down the shitter thanks to Clueless' selfish mishandling of the said player's shoulder injury. But that's a distant memory now, and it's largely irrelevant now because the sort of errors he is making - ie. poor clearances etc - at the moment imo is normally associated with a *lack of match sharpness. *With a full season & pre-season under his belt this no longer applies in Taylor's case.

Also unlike Terry and Ferdinand, who have received the benefits firsthand after playing alongside recognised gamereaders such as Desailly and Blanc, Taylor hasn't served an apprenticeship under the sort of players mentioned - Woodgate would have easily slotted into that category. Going by early signs Cacapa or Rozenhal could be the sort of players - ie. gamereaders - needed to guide him, because for a while now Taylor's defending has been too 'last ditch' for my liking. The problem is, and this is based on form, he doesn't deserve a place ahead of those mentioned and so the aforementioned tutelage is strictly training pitch only.

Will Taylor, with the advice of his father who will most likely receive a cut on his next contract deal/signing bonus, be happy with 4th choice. Being 4th choice certainly affects their leverage in securing a deal which is on level ground with the established starters.

If Taylor Inc aren't happy with the current situation/pecking order they can bugger off, because we've got young Huntington coming through the ranks and i was quite impressed with him last season. As a 'project player' he could fill the '4th place centrehalf slot' comfortably and imo Taylor won't be missed.

Smith was class today up front as a supporting striker in terms of his linkup play. Thought hed be a s*** signing, but im happy to eat my words - this has been the second game in a row where hes looked very bright in attacking areas. Dont think hes going to score many goals even as a forward, but if others around him are doing the business in that particular category, then it really doesnt matter, because his one-touch-passing and intelligence in his linkup play is arguably considerably better than that of Viduka's, Owen's or Martins'.

 

If were playing a 4-4-2, from what weve seen thus far, it should be Smith + other up front (until Martins improves his basic play anyway), especially once Barton and Emre get fully fit, simply because were going to be playing better possession football with a frontman who is capable of recieving the ball comfortably and consistently finding a teamate. Viduka has had some good moments for us up front, but the rest of the time hes been chasing shadows, fouling defenders, and having a tug-of-war competition with his marker, which ultimately results in us wasting possession or doing little with it.

 

Hes s*** in comparison, and maybe its too early to call, but Smith could possibly be the closest thing to a Beardsley replacement weve had since Pedro was sold to Bolton - that link between the midfield and attack, someone bright enough and capable enough to consistently play other players in when in good attacking positions. Needs more games in that position at the very least.

Couldn't agree more re: Smith.

There's no comparison between Smith & Viduka, in terms of work-rate/being prepared to the put in the hard yards for the team by linking up the play between midfield & the final 1/3 - shaking his marker and operating in both outside channels rather than just taking up space in the central corridor and wrestling with his marker for much of 90 minutes.

Smith, if utilised as a withdrawn forward, would be one of the first players attached to my teamsheet.

Taylor down to 4th choice CB now, he won't like that.

Especially his father.

Can anyone sum those long posts up with a few pictures so i know whats going on?

Simply ask the Moderators to delete the thread in that case, it will most likely die a very quick death anyway.

The fact that Offiong is at Hamilton Accies rather suggests that although he may have had promise as a youngster, he never progressed. 

 

 

But he never received a genuine crack, with the League Cup being the indicator i speak of, as opposed to Allidiere and others at Arsenal who would also fit that mould.

But some those Lge Cup squads, which Arsenal have fielded in previous years amidst their 'youth policy' have been battered in the early rounds, and at the later stages of the competition. I cited the Middlesborough tie as an example, and Wenger as borne the brunt of the criticism especially after that loss to Middlesborough. You mention the current Arsenal Lge Cup squad, but this is the end result of say 2-3 years of outstanding recruiting - and there is an element of luck, even with their extensive scouting net - which has seen Wenger unearth a generation of footballers which will serve Arsenal for the next decade, providing they can hold onto them of course. Even in Arsenal's case over the years there has been a 'hit & miss', a trial and error element behind their cup expeditions. At least the likes of Alladiere, based on your reasoning that he wasn't ultimately good enough for standard set by the club, were given ample opportunity to prove their worth with the League Cup being the primary platform given to impress the heirachy. Whereas we've got/had kids, as those previously mentioned, who at the time have been seen to possess more natural/raw ability than say a Peter Ramage yet there fate has been that of rotting in the reserves, while the established first team in many instances puts in a half-arsed effort in the League Cup.

There is a difference in ability, with regards to our respective set-ups, it largely has to do with the talent pool from which Wenger draws them from as you've previously stated. But in all honesty when we do unearth somebody like Lua Lua - ie. the one currently in the reserve set-up - who according to reports has the speed and athleticism coupled with a high skill level which makes him stand out from the others in our current set-up i'd rather see that particular kid have a genuine crack at the whip, in preference to guys like Ameobi who like Alladiere in Arsenal's case was given ample chances to impress but in the end was moved on in order to make way for the ones, or very few in our case, who stand out from the new batch.

I was going to put the following in the original post but the job description at Newcastle United for the juniors, for those in the Academy who have more ability than most and i've drummed up a couple of examples, reads more like "win a Junior Cup, while at the same time we offer an apprenticeship that will prepare you for life in the lower divisions.... or in some other bloody football outpost". The likes of Ramage, Ameobi and Taylor - and the former two have ability that should've in our case & would've been questioned from the outset in Arsenal's system - have all been handed their first team chance amidst a plethora of injuries in the first team. 

At Arsenal they sort 'the genuine gems' from the 'mistakes' very early on, and they build accordingly and much of that building, coupled with passing-on 'the misses', comes as a result of those indicator matches being the league cup ties. If we cop a few floggings, or early exits, in the League Cup then so be it. We simply expand our search net and upgrade to a more expansive talent pool as Arsenal have and always done.

A difference in Cup Priorities: Newcastle United & Arsenal.

Arsenal primarily have been lambasted after fielding teams with a predominant youth selection policy in mind.

The Gunners have bigger fish to cook, namely the Champions' League. But for Wenger the Mickey Mouse Cup, which is the League Cup, has always been an important nurturing ground or 'blooding point' for his impressive youngsters - those who have the physical and technical attributes needed to make the step up from reserve to first team football.

A few years back, in the later stages of the Mickey Mouse Cup, they controversially fielded just about their entire Reserve team against Boro. They copped a flogging from Boro in the second leg, but after the drawn first leg and with a spot in the next round Wenger never deviated from the club selecton policy re: The Mickey Mouse Cup. A 'cup dunking' it was, but the experience would ultimately hold those kids in good stead ie. Fabregas and i think Van Persie was also in that line-up.

In our case, over a similar timeframe, the emphasis has been on 'winning a cup' and our selection policy has matched this idealogy accordingly. Fine talents such as Richard Offiong, who had big wraps on him at England U17 level, and now young Lua Lua find themselves not getting a decent look, or 'blooding opportunity', at the first team when the situation arises and in the current climate, this is pertinant to young Lua Lua who we've heard alot of good things about over the past 12 months or so. I'd rather see Ameobi's spot - a player who is really on the cusp ability-wise.... which is no good for a team which has been a mid-table club for the past 3 seasons - go to a youngster whose athleticism and technique might serve them well as an impact player/pinch hitter to be used off the bench in the league. However give the kids, ala the Lua Luas, a full crack in the League Cup on the basis that it is indicator of what - if there is any - ability there is to be moulded.

This selection policy in the league cup even when the first team has been shadowed by a hectic European schedule, where we have preferred the experienced first eleven over the youth team, mirrors the naive rubbish along the lines of 'the fans would rather see us win a cup rather than finish top 4 in the league or thereabouts' spouted by past club stalwarts, those influential figures being members of the previous board and one notable club captain.

I read an interview, concerning Offiong, a couple of years back whose previous second division manager stated that he had the ability but he lacked the motivation and the spirit go anywhere. Obviously the motivation issue wasn't a presenting problem while the very same player in question progressed through the youth ranks at International/England level. I guess rotting in the reserves, with a feeling of 'going nowhere fast', amidst a scattergun-like selection policy - as opposed to Arsenal's player guiding ethics - has only seen Ameobi and Taylor emerge can have that kind of draining effect on a promising up & comer in the previous mold of say Offiong, and now possibly Lua Lua not too far down the track.

I hope a kid in the mould primarly of Lua Lua doesn't travel down the route now being encountered by Offiong ie. once viewed as being technically and athletically promising only to have their spirit leached out of them over time, before ultimately landing in some god forsaken league in North Africa.

Talented kids come and go, some fall by the wayside. For every Eboue there's an Allardiere, or someone who doesn't quite make it over the course of the trip. But at least at Arsenal, re: the Mickey Mouse Cup, they're given ample opportunity during their odyssey to show the man in charge that 'at least they might just make it'. Although it's tough ask in order to break into that Arsenal First Sixteen, it's all about giving them a glimmer of hope.

In order for our club to progress, or to be more specific 'to truly solidify itself as a top 4 or six club, i've always maintained that the current manager had to change our on-field and off-field footballing cultures. There has been little change on the field re:style of play although i'll give Big Sam time to get it right. Unlike the Scottish b****** he has set about the task of building a team, and the following  transfer windows depending on how far the current board is prepared to back him - ie. the eradication of the "sell before we buy" pattern which emerged over the course of the Summer - will give a clearer indication as to how he'll apply the finshing touches of varnish. But the football on offer has to folllow suit, at the moment it's very much 'square pegs, round holes' stuff. The hoof it up the park approach is at odds with what is a bloody useful back four, as a single ball-playing unit that is.

Part of the off-field process relates to developing the youngsters in the reserves. Allardyce, as Wenger has, needs to strike an appropriate balance with regards to selection policy which will ultimatley enable those with the appropriate ability to shine through. The Mickey Mouse Cup has become a poison chalice for this club, a competition often blighted by a full strength first eleven which has acquired an unhealthy habit of delivering consistently half-arsed performances. It's time to hand the baton over to the youngsters on a full time basis. Throw them in the deep end, those with more natural/raw ability will stand out from the rest.

I no longer want to see the continuation of this 'cup obsession' which imo has come at the expense not developing the previous Offiongs/youngsters, and possibly the Lua Luas of the current reserve team set-up, who have not had a genuine crack at the big time before they've ultimatley fallen through the cracks into relative obscurity........ even if it's odds with the 'result-driven' mantra - re: the Cups - previously spouted off by one particular club stalwart who currently adorns himself on many a supporters/'bairns who have only idolised one player' bedroom walls.

Half time 1 1 we've been poor, emre has sat very deep and linking up play, some nice passing in triangles with enrique. Barton has been ok, some good passes, you can tell he has been out for a while, Faye and edgar have been solid in the air but city have opened us up a few times on the break, it's f****** freezing

 

A proven Premiership player and our most promising young defender not a match for young Citeh players. Worrying sign.

 

Massive over reaction from a few lines about City opening us up on the break!!

 

Edgar was class, won everything in the air and solid in the tackle, good at reading the game and some very good interceptions. Faye is just a beast, won everything in the air and can head the ball a very long way, he often used is strength to get us out of dodgy situations. The fact we were opened up a few times by City on the break was more to do with Pattison and Emre in the middle being upfield and then our defence being overran by the City midfield. All in all it was a very good game and a decent performance, Pattison had a decent game in midfield, Lua Lua showed glimpses for amazing skill. Enrique looked solid at the back and very dangerous going forward when he did go forward. Emre had a decent game, as you would expect from someone of his quality at this level, he sat deep for most of the first half but got more involved in the second half, thought he was going to get himself sent off when he went marching over to start on one of the City kids who had just caught him with a late tackle after he had played a pass, thankfully Edgar jogged over and prevented him from doing anything stupid. Forster in net was class, he really has developed so much in the last year or so, his shot stopping today was top class, his kicking needs a lot of work but his distribution via his hands was very good, can throw the ball a very long way and he is quick to spot an opening, run to the edge of his box and get us going on counter attacks.

 

After the game I spoke to Lee Clark (miserable git), Faye (seemed so small when he looks massive on the pitch), Emre (flash git, had a leather wash bag with his own personalized silver plaque) and finally I had a few words in Spanish with Jose Enrique, just said told him I could speak a little bit of Spanish and that he played well, his response in Spanish was 'Thanks, I can't speak any English, sorry.'

 

 

Heard alot of good things about Lua Lua, on the skill/technique & pace issue that is.

 

IMO that sort of raw potential should be harnessed right now, and he should be blooded into the 1st team picture accordingly ie. a spot on the bench, an impact player to be used late in games. Wenger throws his athletic and 'technique blessed' youngsters into the mix early and on the majority of times it's payed off. Not only does this type of litmus test show if they've got the attributes required to cut it at a higher level than the reserves but it also gives them taste of the atmosphere which is to be experienced in the EPL. They'll strive to work harder to get there, or stay there. At the moment - ie. for talented kids like Lua Lua - there has to be a feeling of 'going nowhere fast' with regards to their careers here at SJP, all the while as managers continue for nearly a half decade to reserve spots in the First 16 for talentless wasters ala Ameobi.

 

Over the past few years, when i hear of a kid like Lua Lua still playing Reserve football, i've felt that we've been building a reserve team to win lower level cups as opposed to having a estuary which provides the first team with a healthy supply of 'up & comers' to be blooded when the occasion seemed fit ie. League Cup ties, and the sort of bench-role mentioned earlier.

 

I remember another African-born kid, possibly Congolese, playing for the reserves a few years ago, and this dates back to Robson's reign. This particular lad whose name has completely escaped me - i'll no doubt remember it when i'm sitting on the shitter at a later time - was an England U17 representative who eventually sought pastures anew in the second divison. I think he's playing league football somewhere in North Africa right now. At the time his then manager referred to his athleticism and technique with healthy praise, but also mentioned there was something missing in his psychogical make-up ie. a motivation problem. I can only guess that rotting in the reserves for 2-3 years, and not even getting a sniff at a league-cup appearance, before being cast-off will affect one's confidence and motivation. 

RE: Forster's throw-ins. Reminscent of Peter Schmeical, based on your assessment. Launching counterattacks on the wings, via the long angled throws, hasn't been seen much post-Schmeical.

 

Not long off the shitter now. It was Richard Offiong.

................................... yet we waited for the completion of the lengthy Dyer transfer - ie 'sell before you buy' with regards to the current board/owner - in order to acquire the partial funds needed to purchase Faye, Beye and Enrique collectively.

Good thing we were able to get rid of the bling king.

I'm sick of our England hopefuls, at least according to their own estimation, like Milner/Ameobi and formerly Dyer talking up a big-game.

They should prove their worth out on the pitch at club-level first and foremost, rather than blabber about their England ambitions in the press.

Half time 1 1 we've been poor, emre has sat very deep and linking up play, some nice passing in triangles with enrique. Barton has been ok, some good passes, you can tell he has been out for a while, Faye and edgar have been solid in the air but city have opened us up a few times on the break, it's f****** freezing

 

A proven Premiership player and our most promising young defender not a match for young Citeh players. Worrying sign.

 

Massive over reaction from a few lines about City opening us up on the break!!

 

Edgar was class, won everything in the air and solid in the tackle, good at reading the game and some very good interceptions. Faye is just a beast, won everything in the air and can head the ball a very long way, he often used is strength to get us out of dodgy situations. The fact we were opened up a few times by City on the break was more to do with Pattison and Emre in the middle being upfield and then our defence being overran by the City midfield. All in all it was a very good game and a decent performance, Pattison had a decent game in midfield, Lua Lua showed glimpses for amazing skill. Enrique looked solid at the back and very dangerous going forward when he did go forward. Emre had a decent game, as you would expect from someone of his quality at this level, he sat deep for most of the first half but got more involved in the second half, thought he was going to get himself sent off when he went marching over to start on one of the City kids who had just caught him with a late tackle after he had played a pass, thankfully Edgar jogged over and prevented him from doing anything stupid. Forster in net was class, he really has developed so much in the last year or so, his shot stopping today was top class, his kicking needs a lot of work but his distribution via his hands was very good, can throw the ball a very long way and he is quick to spot an opening, run to the edge of his box and get us going on counter attacks.

 

After the game I spoke to Lee Clark (miserable git), Faye (seemed so small when he looks massive on the pitch), Emre (flash git, had a leather wash bag with his own personalized silver plaque) and finally I had a few words in Spanish with Jose Enrique, just said told him I could speak a little bit of Spanish and that he played well, his response in Spanish was 'Thanks, I can't speak any English, sorry.'

 

Heard alot of good things about Lua Lua, on the skill/technique & pace issue that is.

IMO that sort of raw potential should be harnessed right now, and he should be blooded into the 1st team picture accordingly ie. a spot on the bench, an impact player to be used late in games. Wenger throws his athletic and 'technique blessed' youngsters into the mix early and on the majority of times it's payed off. Not only does this type of litmus test show if they've got the attributes required to cut it at a higher level than the reserves but it also gives them taste of the atmosphere which is to be experienced in the EPL. They'll strive to work harder to get there, or stay there. At the moment - ie. for talented kids like Lua Lua - there has to be a feeling of 'going nowhere fast' with regards to their careers here at SJP, all the while as managers continue for nearly a half decade to reserve spots in the First 16 for talentless wasters ala Ameobi.

Over the past few years, when i hear of a kid like Lua Lua still playing Reserve football, i've felt that we've been building a reserve team to win lower level cups as opposed to having a estuary which provides the first team with a healthy supply of 'up & comers' to be blooded when the occasion seemed fit ie. League Cup ties, and the sort of bench-role mentioned earlier.

I remember another African-born kid, possibly Congolese, playing for the reserves a few years ago, and this dates back to Robson's reign. This particular lad whose name has completely escaped me - i'll no doubt remember it when i'm sitting on the shitter at a later time - was an England U17 representative who eventually sought pastures anew in the second divison. I think he's playing league football somewhere in North Africa right now. At the time his then manager referred to his athleticism and technique with healthy praise, but also mentioned there was something missing in his psychogical make-up ie. a motivation problem. I can only guess that rotting in the reserves for 2-3 years, and not even getting a sniff at a league-cup appearance, before being cast-off will affect one's confidence and motivation. 

RE: Forster's throw-ins. Reminscent of Peter Schmeical, based on your assessment. Launching counterattacks on the wings, via the long angled throws, hasn't been seen much post-Schmeical.

in the Journal it said words to the effect that sam dediced not to go for Elano as he already had a "wealth of riches upfront". 

 

THAT I find extremely worrying

 

 

Even more worrying is the new board, if there is a grain of truth to this story, let one slip through the cracks thanks to their over-conservative approach for much of the transfer window. Wouldn't suprise me in the slightest though as i think, and my recollection might be wide of the mark here, we only completed the Barton deal after the incoming funds from the outgoing transfer involving Parker were confirmed. A pattern did emerge over the course of the window.

Hopefully they've, and i refer to Mort, learnt a valuable lesson abeit a costly one re:transfer window strategy................... "buy before you sell".

Transfer A relying on the outcome Transfer B only serves the purpose of allowing another club to steal somebody's thunder/getting a successful & late crack at a player ie. Elano.

The headline "........ takes the NorthEast Young Footballer Award in recognition of his wing wizardry" looks like something normally taken off the backpage of the The Chronicle, a paper which usually drums up stuff like 'Newcastle's defensive ace Peter Ramage'.

How recently has Geremi proven he is better than Milner on the right? Its like saying Duff is proven better on the left than N'Zogbia because Duff at his peak was a far better player than Zog currently is.

Recently? Depends how you judge it. I'm basing it on the fact that Geremi still hasn't lost his pace and can cross a ball. He rarely relied on his pace and more on his technical/crossing ability and footbal brain I assume he will adapt. He is a far better technical player than Milner. He did alright on the right for Chelsea when asked at both right back and on the right side of midfield. His pedigree at Madrid, Boro and Chelsea is good in that position. In view of Milner's current (very poor) form it would be something I would welcome. Long term (hopefully not that long) we need better than both.

Just to reiterate a point Jon, I would keep Milner as a squad player. However, if he wanted away I wouldn't be crying about it or worrying when he came back with another team.

 

Couldn't agree more, the bold section is the main point and it's something i raised in another thread.

Geremi and Duff are better options on the right.

^why Smith up front rather than Viduka?

A noticeable difference in workrate when either player have operated upfront during their respective careers, or a willingness to operate in either outside channel. Viduka has the technique to hold the ball up and release the ball quickly to his inside running attackers. It's often a thankless job but his willingness to laterally patrol the last defensive line has always been lacking, he's strictly an inside corridor man as opposed to Shearer pre-2002/03, a natural goalbox predator who was still prepared to put in the hard yards for the team.

Martins and Smith can operate in either channel, and as such we'd give the opposing rearguard an everchanging look. *At the moment, whether it's been a 433 or the rarity which is the 442, our frontline is too rigid. There's no versatility, or the ability to change things up on the fly, and as a result we're giving our opposing rearguards' too little variety in the way of defensive match-ups in the final 1/3.......... we're giving them the luxury of slipping into a 'comfort zone' as matches wear one.

So far this season we've damaged teams early in our opening halves, *whereas on most occasions we've done very little after the break and i think this 'lack of versatility upfront' has been a contributing factor.

at home, we should start with

 

BEYE   CACAPA   ROZEY   ENRIQUE

 

MILNER  BARTON  EMRE  ZOG

 

         MARTINS   VIDUKA

I'd be much happier with Geremi on the right, and Smith upfront - in preferance over Viduka - alongside Martins.

Barton's best work occurs off the ball going forward, and Emre without having pace akin to Fabregas - ie. who just blows past backtracking midfielders - has the knack of beating a checking/pressing defender by playing the ball laterally past his man with his first touch, and then he generally follows it up with a good feeding ball further forward. He's not in Deco's league, and both similarly don't possess the kind of speed mentioned earlier, but i think he's a similar type of player and his his evasiveness when beating one defender coupled with his passing range would compliment what Barton offers in an attacking sense.   

Milner : still too one-paced for my liking  and i imo uses up too much petrol in the tank on his run prior to releasing his final ball ie. fatigue often plays havok with one's technique, especially under pressure from his opposite number. Whereas C.Ronaldo for all his pace and dribbling ability possesses guile in that he knows when to hold the ball up, when to ride a challenge. Playing the ball past the man all the time results in the attacker getting too close to the bylines and there's not too many guys around who can spear dangerous balls into the box from these positions with consistency. Henry and Ronaldo are a couple, but Milner is far from this exclusive list.

Some might say he's too slow but at least Geremi can ride a challenge, and he doesn't appear to use much fuel when going forward with the ball. In addition Geremi's a far better player technically and his delivery/end product when operating wide, whether it be as a winger for Boro or as a fullback for Chelsea, has looked more threatening in the past.

Good points raised by Tsunami, why people can't debate it like a grown up instead of name calling I don't know.

 

I wasn't name calling.  My gripe is that i doubt this thread would have appeared if we had of won last night.  It's not often that i post on here. So from an objective point of view i can see that the week following a win is dominated by mostly positive threads, and following defeat, the opposite.

It's funny that a few people at the time, and the still do by the way, proclaim that the club should've started looking to replace Robson within 12 months of our third place finish in 02/03. There were warning signs that Robson had just about hit the end of the road ie. the team's lack of width/creativity & ball retention in comparison with 01/02, and an evident lack of a squad rotation policy which in itself went against the grain of what was a heavy fixture schedule at the time and as a result he ran that particular  first eleven into the ground.

In context with the original post and on the basis of what you say - ie. thread positivity/negativity versus previous results & league position - were these people/posters negative thinking muppets?....... and by the way i was one of those mentioned as per the above? It's more like they had the guts and were prepared to say how it was, even if it went against that of a 'position based popular opinion'. Going by the following season i'd say that a few of us were correct re: Robson.

This has been a difficult time for Martins. He will have been told by his agents at the Stellar Group that United were prepared to sell him in the close season and that there were no takers.

Someone please, please tell me where I missed this, or is Anal just being a c***?

Don't worry, if Martins hits a purple patch of form soon he'll rekindle the "Wenger Interest" soon enough.

Same applies - re. interest from Arsenal - to N'Zogbia, somebody with a 'poor attitude' according to the Chronicle's resident pisshead and another of our French/African contingent who won't touch Oliver with a bargepole in the form of interviews/exclusives etc, if he continues to rediscover his late-season form from a couple of seasons back.