sicsfingeredmong

The Glaziers put Man United into heavy debt, just to borrow the amount to achieve their buy-out of the club. Supporters were initially very concerned as what the club's future/direction held on the transfer front re- expenditure, potential selling of top players etc.

 

It would have been complacent on their part to just rely on the strength of their incursion into the Asian market - merchandise and TV based revenue - while spending little and flogging off players whenever an acceptable bid surfaced for players of value. A mid-table Man United would not have not have chewed a such large hole into that aforementioned 'debt levied onto the club' by not investing in the trophy youngsters they have signed in the wake of the Glaziers takeover.

 

No penny-pinching/buy swap & sell/'grocery store' transfer story approach on their part. And a mid-table Man United would have been the likely scenario if they adopted the Ashely 101 'cheap' scheme of how to run a club on the football side of the equation.

 

The effect being a volatile market jumping aboard the next available bandwagon as an over-cautiously run United fell by the wayside, behind Chelsea for example. And Man United no longer had the marketing power of the Beckham Franchise, which is an exlusive marketing tool in its own right, to benefit from either.

 

In the case of United, in terms of maintaining a position of power in the Asian market, it's entirely results based, where periods of water treading in the league would not bode well.

 

On a different scale this same sort prioritising should have applied to Ashley as well.

man utd can carry their debt due to their turnover and profitability.

 

i refer you to quaysiders post.

 

Their strength in the Asian market was cited as the contributing factor as to why they chewed up the debt levied upon the club - via Glaziers borrowing - so quickly. It wasn't attributed to their domestic standing.

 

Do you believe a mid-table hovering Man United would achieved similar results ie. the debt aspect just mentioned & the Asian market?

 

 

"contributing factor".....so it's wasn't the only basis, it's almost as if you forget they were making sizeable profits for years before that and guess what.....that makes it easier to finance and obtain credit/debt.

 

and the 2nd bit is plain silly as you are answering your own question.

............... but you see a mid-table Man Utd outfit would no longer have the benefit of flogging off 'Beckham no.7' in Asia.

Funny that. A while ago some here - a while ago - cited that as one reason as to why should've made a move for the same player, to make minor dent into the same market.

The Glaziers put Man United into heavy debt, just to borrow the amount to achieve their buy-out of the club. Supporters were initially very concerned as what the club's future/direction held on the transfer front re- expenditure, potential selling of top players etc.

 

It would have been complacent on their part to just rely on the strength of their incursion into the Asian market - merchandise and TV based revenue - while spending little and flogging off players whenever an acceptable bid surfaced for players of value. A mid-table Man United would not have not have chewed a such large hole into that aforementioned 'debt levied onto the club' by not investing in the trophy youngsters they have signed in the wake of the Glaziers takeover.

 

No penny-pinching/buy swap & sell/'grocery store' transfer story approach on their part, a so-called multi-year plan as peddled by Llabarse and Co. And a mid-table Man United would have been the likely scenario if they adopted the Ashely 101 'cheap' scheme of how to run a club on the football side of the equation.

 

The effect relating to above paragraph being a volatile market jumping aboard the next available bandwagon as an over-cautiously run United fell by the wayside, behind Chelsea for example. And Man United no longer had the marketing power of the Beckham Franchise, which is an exlusive marketing tool in its own right, to benefit from either.

 

In the case of United, in terms of maintaining a position of power in the Asian market, it's entirely results based, where periods of water treading in the league would not bode well.

 

On a different scale this same sort prioritising should have applied to Ashley as well.

 

We're nowhere near Man Utd as a club ffs!!! For one, Glazier came in, and kept the same footballing set-up! Man Utd was superbly run prior to the takeover!! They didn't have a managerial merry-go-round, they didn't have an ageing over paid squad! they didn't have a useless and dysfunctional academy and youth set-up! You cannot even begin to compare us with Man Utd!!! We had already fallen way way way behind them in terms of footballing institutions years ago. If we had won that title in '95, we may have had a chance. That chance was blown by Graham f***ing Fenton.

I never suggested we were on the same level pegging, hence the phrase 'on a different scale'. That was obviously lost upon you at the time.

The phrase mentioned applies both to overall market strength - both home & abroad - and the sort of spending undertaken by the Glaziers to maintain their status on this football business front ie. result-driven market appeal.

As for the points placed in bold. All overseen by just one bloke, the most important man at the club - the manager. The very essence and the core of their respective and successful set-ups, all undermined by Ashley's whoosh woo woo Continental system. A system whom the likes of Wenger and i dare say it Ferguson wouldn't work within either.

Will you go on record to suggest the next listed signings - Gavilan, Bramble, Viana, Bernard, Ambrose, N'Zogbia under Robson, Dyer & Domi under Gullit.... project type/youth players - were not overseen by the managers in question and that we didn't have a similar set-up in place. Admittedly we didn't have the same far-reaching scouting network in place. But nonetheless the manager oversaw which youngsters were brought inot the fold.

I've repeatedly stated from the outset that i never expected a 100m spending spree over a couple of Summers in the wake Ashley's take-over, nor did i expect the club do come in with the sort of money thrown for the youngsters earmarked as the tools of requirement in order to replicate to Arsenal youth-driven model. I've previously cited the desultory pittance we offered for Delph as the obvious example - ie. of us not spending the required amount needed to poach the higher echelons of the youth talent pool - in the Summer transfer window non-event, a window where the top brass put the manager's most valued players on sale behind his back.

Before comparisons are made to the expenditure layed out for Rose, and what Leeds accepted. With regards to Delph, at a similar age to Rose when the latter moved to Spurs, he is more a player who fits into the mould of somebody who is more likely to make an immediate impact and that's purely down to physical attributes when compared to the impish Rose. By comparison Rose waas a riskier prospect, a longer-term reach hence a Leeds - a club noted for their academy/talent production line - for any club willing to gamble on the scope of improvement ie. to make an impact at EPL level. And in Rose's case there was a contractual issue at hand, which featured heavily in the tiny amount Spurs payed for him. This contractual issue, with regards to him quitting Leeds' academy, has already been posted elsewhere.

This is a shocking indictment levied upon the Ashley regime, in the wake of their much mooted Arsenal model talk.

I suppose the likes of Nile Ranger, by sheer fluke, will consistently fall out of trees and into their lap........will they?

The Glaziers put Man United into heavy debt, just to borrow the amount to achieve their buy-out of the club. Supporters were initially very concerned as what the club's future/direction held on the transfer front re- expenditure, potential selling of top players etc.

 

It would have been complacent on their part to just rely on the strength of their incursion into the Asian market - merchandise and TV based revenue - while spending little and flogging off players whenever an acceptable bid surfaced for players of value. A mid-table Man United would not have not have chewed a such large hole into that aforementioned 'debt levied onto the club' by not investing in the trophy youngsters they have signed in the wake of the Glaziers takeover.

 

No penny-pinching/buy swap & sell/'grocery store' transfer story approach on their part. And a mid-table Man United would have been the likely scenario if they adopted the Ashely 101 'cheap' scheme of how to run a club on the football side of the equation.

 

The effect being a volatile market jumping aboard the next available bandwagon as an over-cautiously run United fell by the wayside, behind Chelsea for example. And Man United no longer had the marketing power of the Beckham Franchise, which is an exlusive marketing tool in its own right, to benefit from either.

 

In the case of United, in terms of maintaining a position of power in the Asian market, it's entirely results based, where periods of water treading in the league would not bode well.

 

On a different scale this same sort prioritising should have applied to Ashley as well.

man utd can carry their debt due to their turnover and profitability.

 

i refer you to quaysiders post.

Their strength in the Asian market was cited as the contributing factor as to why they chewed up the debt levied upon the club - via Glaziers borrowing - so quickly. It wasn't attributed to their domestic standing.

Do you believe a mid-table hovering Man United would achieved similar results ie. the debt aspect just mentioned & the Asian market?

The Glaziers put Man United into heavy debt, just to borrow the amount to achieve their buy-out of the club. Supporters were initially very concerned as what the club's future/direction held on the transfer front re- expenditure, potential selling of top players etc.

It would have been complacent on their part to just rely on the strength of their incursion into the Asian market - merchandise and TV based revenue - while spending little and flogging off players whenever an acceptable bid surfaced for players of value. A mid-table Man United would not have not have chewed a such large hole into that aforementioned 'debt levied onto the club' by not investing in the trophy youngsters they have signed in the wake of the Glaziers takeover.

No penny-pinching/buy swap & sell/'grocery store' transfer story approach on their part, a so-called multi-year plan as peddled by Llabarse and Co. And a mid-table Man United would have been the likely scenario if they adopted the Ashely 101 'cheap' scheme of how to run a club on the football side of the equation.

The effect relating to above paragraph being a volatile market jumping aboard the next available bandwagon as an over-cautiously run United fell by the wayside, behind Chelsea for example. And Man United no longer had the marketing power of the Beckham Franchise, which is an exlusive marketing tool in its own right, to benefit from either.

In the case of United, in terms of maintaining a position of power in the Asian market, it's entirely results based, where periods of water treading in the league would not bode well.

On a different scale this same sort prioritising should have applied to Ashley as well.

Ghana were at one stage - and still are i think........ stand to be corrected on this - the holders of the tag 'most African Championships won' . During this same period, i speak of the generation which included Pele and Yeboah, they still didn't seal a World Cup finals appearance.

There was always an emerging nation in their midst, such was the depth in widespread talent pool Africa. Cameroon and Nigeria in the 90's, and whilst they didn't have the same effect in the finals one could mention South Africa bolting out of the blue soonafter.

Nigeria are suffering in a similar way, to Ghana in the 80's and 90's. Widespread talent, hence the amount of  teams who have qualified since Cameroon's breakthrough appearance in Italy have been numerous. The African representation at the finals hasn't been nailed-on, it hasn't been the case of there being a select group of ring-ins akin to South America and the similarly comparable top-heavy nations in Europe.

To say that the actual qualification path in Africa is an easy one is a tad inaccurate. And when the likes of Nigeria do get grouped in a so-called group of death - with an Ivory Coast etc, and there have been a few of these over the same period as suggested in the original post - there are no second chances either, in the event of beaten to the post by one team.

Due to the quota of representation afforded to Africa there are no return plane tickets awarded to them, to face an outfit from another nation as a last gasp opportunity to qualify. The antithesis situation being the home and away ties featuring an Asian or Sth American and the winner Oceania region in the event of either *Sth American or Asian nation not qualifying via their own group phase. How the likes of Ghana, Nigeria, Cameroon and others would have killed for the same opportunity last gasp opportunity handed to the likes of Argentina, Uruguay and Iraq.

*partly dependent on Blatter pleasing confederations with influence & voting power come Fifa predential election time.

http://www.doncasterroversfc.co.uk/page/NewsFeatures/0,,10329~1603882,00.html

Doncaster Rovers welcomed Newcastle United winger Kazenga LuaLua to South Yorkshire on Thursday afternoon, with the 18 year-old champing at the bit to get started.

 

LuaLua, the younger brother of former Newcastle United and Portsmouth striker Lomana, has made five senior appearances for the Toon, since graduating from the St. James' Park outfit's youth system and is looking to get some regular football under his belt in his month-long stay at Keepmoat Stadium.

 

Kazenga signed on loan shortly after having his first training session under Sean O'Driscoll at Rovers' Cantley Park Training Ground and, as LuaLua reveals, the move came about very quickly.

 

"It was two days ago when I was in training; the reserve manager spoke to me and told me that I would be going on loan to Doncaster," explains Kazenga.

 

"I was happy when he told me and yesterday my agent phoned me and told me that I would actually be coming to Doncaster the next day. I arrived at Doncaster train station at 10:30 today (Thursday) and my agent came to pick me up. I then came to training and it has been very good."

 

"I have met all of the lads and they are really nice people," says LuaLua on his first impressions of Doncaster Rovers Football Club.

 

"Today was my first day in training and all of the players have been nice to me and made me feel welcome. I'm sure that they will all help me settle in well."

 

Kazenga's first day of training allowed the Rovers' new loan signing the chance to play alongside members of the Club's first team; something that LuaLua has not done on a regular basis at Newcastle United.

 

"At Newcastle United, I don't often train with the first team unless they have injuries to players. If the injured players are back, I normally train with the reserves and the under-18 lads. I told my agent that I wanted to go on loan to a team where the experience would be good for me at my age and he told me to speak to (Newcastle United Executive Director of Football) Dennis Wise. I spoke to Dennis Wise and he said that Doncaster would be a good place for me to go and I was really happy to hear that."

 

"Dennis Wise told me that Doncaster Rovers are a good team, with a good manager. Dennis knows the manager here well and he told me that he is a good man. He told me that they like to play football, [glow=red,2,300]they don't play long-ball and that made me happy, because that is the way that I like to play football. [/glow]I would play long-ball football, though, if it meant playing in games and getting the experience."

 

LuaLua is set to start a full week's training on Monday morning and could go straight into the Rovers squad for the visit of Watford on Saturday 4th April, an exciting prospect for a player hungry for first team action.

 

"That's why I have come here - to play football. I feel I need to play the first team football to get the experience for myself and then we'll see what happens. From my first day today, everything here seems good and I really enjoyed the training today."

 

For many Doncaster Rovers supporters, Lomana will be the better known of the LuaLua brothers; however Kazenga is a player that promises to offer a lot to Rovers push to ensure Championship football for another season.

 

"I like to take players on and I like to beat players. I have good pace, with or without the ball. If the manager gives me my chance, I will be doing my very best to take that chance. As I have said, I'm looking forward to getting some experience but my main strength is taking people on. I can play on the left or the right wing or I can play just behind the striker - but if the manager told me to play anywhere, I would play there."

 

The move to Doncaster will have been made easier for Kazenga, thanks to the sight of a familiar face, whose brother is also at St. James' Park.

 

"I knew Tomi Ameobi and I know his brother Shola. I knew Tomi from when he was playing at Newcastle and it's nice for me to have a friend from Newcastle here at Doncaster. It makes it a lot easier to settle."

 

LuaLua, who will wear the number 27 shirt vacated by Craig Nelthorpe, will remain at DN4 for the next month and the player's aim for that spell is simple.

 

"The month that I am here, I want to try my best. I want to improve myself and this is the first time that I have come out on loan to a club and to come to Doncaster has been really nice; I'm just here to try my best and do well."

 

Wonder if Wise consulted the manager/coach?

Indirect criticism of the first team's overall pattern of play, and one where he stands little chance to develop as a ball-carrying winger/attacking midfielder?

We don't exactly create open space for our widemen, by spreading the play from left-to-right and so forth. Very little build-up play from the back, complimented with the outlet balls from the middle of the engine room to wide channels. 

Our inadequacies with regards to our ball-movent & overall pattern of play doesn't present as the ideal footballing education for a lightweight but otherwise quick & skillful youngster. Perhaps he sees that his football future - particularly learning the tools of the trade at a senior level - lies elsewhere.

Club have said again they will not be bringing anyone in.

 

Toon not planning El Tel move

Toon to stick with current set-up

Last updated: 24th March 2009

 

Sky Sports News understands Newcastle have no plans to bring in Terry Venables as manager on a temporary basis.

 

Reports on Tuesday suggested Newcastle were considering appointing Venables on a stop-gap basis as Joe Kinnear continues his recovery from heart surgery.

 

Caretaker management duo Chris Hughton and Colin Calderwood are currently in charge of first-team affairs at St James' Park with reports suggesting a number of players had called for an experienced head like Venables to come in and steady the ship.

 

Newcastle dropped into the relegation zone after losing 3-1 to Arsenal at the weekend, but the club's hierarchy are thought to be happy with their current coaching set-up and have ruled out a move for former England chief Venables

They should be bloody shot.

Will struggle even more in the Championship imo, particularly within Kinnear's game plan - one dimensional brand of direct football from the back.

Punches below his listed height in the air whether be as a targetman through the central corridor or as perceived threat with the ball being crossed into the box and it's mostly down to his poor reading/being unable to gauge a ball's/crosse's flight - a strength in Owen's bow.

One other aspect i'll raise deals with the point of impact - when jostling for front position with his marker - where his balance is poor and imo it's down to a general lack of core strength. Whether it's down to any supposed lack of commitment off-the-pitch on the part of the player, or through poor guidance on the part of those - SBR is one name to be thrown into the mix - who were charged with his development when he was rising through the senior ranks. In any case this aspect of his game is indefensible. Always looks off-balance when taking that 1st touch, and imo it's a major contributing factor behind his turnovers in possession around the centre circle when it's fired direct to his feet. It's a big issue for somebody who lacks the mobility to steal a few yards from his minder, as e means of presenting himself as a receiving target which is more palatable than a 50/50 or 'contested ball'.

In the championship he may not be faced with the proposition of coming to grips with the a-typical 'athletic specimen' type, centrehalves currently marking him in the premiership. Whilst they're often found out in the Premiership, due the end-to-end- counterattacking pattern of play of the Prem, centrehalves in the Chamionship generally play a physically close-checking intimidatory game, particularly the veterans - the mainstays of the championship.

With Shola's above mentioned inability to deal with a marker at the point of impact in mind, imo Shola will struggle as our leading or no.1 target man in the Fizzy Pop league.With his durability, or lack of, thrown into the equation his struggles will become even more pronounced than those already experienced in the top flight.

At least Ashley doesn't have to worry about losing him on free - the prospect of losing a minor asset & a minimal transfer fee in the process - in the foreseeable future though.

Ashley V Whelan

 

Sports Direct sought to scupper the rescue of its biggest rival JJB Sports by trying to discourage landlords from backing the emergency sale of its fitness clubs.

 

Despite the spoiling tactics of Sports Direct owner Mike Ashley, the £70m sale to businessman Dave Whelan, the founder and former boss of JJB, is expected to complete tomorrow. JJB is on its knees after breaching its banking covenants (loan conditions), and without the cash the group would face collapse, putting 12,000 jobs in jeopardy.

 

The Treasury helped Whelan meet the deal deadline by hastening the return of £45m of his personal fortune, which was tied up in collapsed Icelandic bank Kaupthing. "The money is there and everything is ready to go," said Whelan.

 

Last week, Sports Direct wrote to JJB's landlords, in effect urging them not to assign the leases to Whelan, potentially torpedoing the deal. In an explosive allegation, Whelan said Ashley even encouraged him to let the retailer he created go bust: "He said if I backed off from the deal he'd guarantee I'd get the health clubs at half the price I'd agreed to pay."

 

If JJB failed, not only would thousands of jobs go, but suppliers would face substantial losses. Whelan met Ashley 10 days ago at the Wrightington Hotel & Country Club in Wigan.

 

Ashley, who also owns Newcastle United, is controversial in the City, having pocketed £930m from the disappointing flotation of Sports Direct in 2007. But there is also bad blood between him and Whelan dating back to 2000. Ashley blew the whistle on the price-fixing of football shirts in the sector, triggering an Office of Fair Trade inquiry.

 

JJB Sports' agreement with its banks expires on Tuesday and JJB plans to use the deal proceeds to pay its £60m debt. It will also seek to jettison around 30 loss-making stores.

 

Sports Direct declined to comment.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/mar/22/sports-direct-international-jjbsports

 

Whelan's ill-feeling toward Ashley is one hundred percent justified imo.

Absolutely disgraceful behaviour by Ashley to be honest, these are people's livelihoods at stake.

An acquaintance of mine - a writer with a London paper - offered his condolences when Ashley purchased the club. He cited the bloke's questionable standard of business ethics as one reason among others.

And Ashley wasn't exactly on the now defunct Umbro's Christmas Card list either, if you read into the details as to how he squeezed and devalued Umbro's chief product by effectively pushing JBB out of the replica shirt selling market. That pales in comparison as to the 'how' pertaining to Ashley blowing the whistle on them - Umbro/Whelan etc - when the said supplier attempted to reign-in the maverick operator/Ashley. Ashley attended the Umbro organised summit/meeting under the guise of a supposedly listening ear, somebody who may have been prepared and willing to compromise for the sake of all parties involved.

In business circles he is known as a rat, and as acquired a sizeable list of enemies over the years. IMO this a major reason as to why the bloke is largely known for being reclusive. Not only that he has built a reputation as being difficult to deal with. Ashley once admitted it himself - when searching for a new CEO for Sports Direct a few years back, it took him nearly a year to that position - when he declared the timeframe/difficulty in filling that position was down to him 'being impossible to work with'.

*Once appeared in The Times.

I never envisioned experiencing a higher level of revulsion - directed against a board/owner - in comparison to how i felt towards the bastards McKeag and Seymour Jr during the mid to late 80's.

For me the bloke who is awarded the opportunity, by sheer chance, and takes advantage of it by belting the absolute & living s*** out of Ashley will earn a spot in the club's folklore - unofficially, and also for the *better.

*it will send a message to any potential suitor that the club isn't some sort of clever marketing extension to a tycoon's central business empire only to be run on the cheap with regards to the footballing side of the equation ie. a well-known brand-name to accompany & compliment their current portfolio of related investments (Dunlop etc etc).

Potentially outstanding news

............................... for the club's financial spreadsheets.

Jonas DOES link well with Enrique, but that is more due to Enrique's movement than his ; Jonas is a luxury player in a team like Newcastle...put him in a decent side and he will look better, but his meaningful contributions are rare - very few goals scored or created by him.

 

When the team loses or fails to score, that will be all 11 players without meaningful contributions.

 

[glow=red,2,300]You cant underestimate the ability to collect the ball under pressure and either make space, beat a man and move the ball forward. [/glow]

 

If you look at the worst NUFC teams and the worst performances, you'll see players collecting balls under pressure without the ability to find a man, make space or beat a player. The team loses possession and eventually the pressure cranks up until we concede.

 

Jonas collected the ball in his own and was surrounded by 3 man u players. If he loses the ball, man u go on the attack. He didnt and we went on the attack. Thats a meaningful contribution imo.

 

All you "but he can't cross..he can't score...end product...boo hooo.." types should read this very carefully. Then read it again a few times until it registers.

With regards to Chez's original post. Those attributes on-the-ball you could also award to Emre, but Emre wasn't as defensively solid as Jonas. Has the makings of a very good ball-carrying link-up man, and Emre didn't have the necessary physical strength & durability to fill a spot in the middle for any meaningful amount of time, in terms of a stretch of games played. But when Emre was there - with Martins' movement and pace further afield - there wasn't much that was amiss with our second phase/counterattacking game.

Nobody - not me at least - is underestimating or overlooking Jonas' strengths. IMO his strengths aren't being used where they would be most advantageous, especially in terms of us creating some incisive second phase play though the middle of the park, if he was used as i've suggested some time ago.

With this type of player filling what is a void in the engine-room there would be very little need to persist with the long-ball rubbish from the back, to a player/s - in Martins & Owen - who are ill-equipped to deal with this persistent pattern of play from the back. Harper's distribution - his short to mid-range passing game is better than Given's - is underestimated & being undervalued by the current bosses, and Collocini is more of a play-making centrehalf as opposed to being a rough & tumble 'old fashioned' British centrehalf. And goals aside Taylor's short passing game is at the moment his redeeming quality as a centrehalf.

Put Beye into the equation and there's enough pass & receiving options in the defensive third who will create the necessary space - by pulling apart the opposition's zonal & pressing play in our half with the passing one-twos, triangles passing sequences - for Jonas as a 1st or 2nd Receiver.

Natural right-sided winger - by trade in Spain - employed on the left here, given the license to check inside. But ultimately can't shoot. That's the unforgivable sin for any wide outfielder who not only has the ability to change direction - ie. close control, and a quick burst over first 10 yards or so - on a dime, but also has the aforementioned license to check back inside. And as such Jonas is a waste of space - in the final 1/3 - on the left.

Robert during his all too brief flirtations in the right sided channels caused more havok in comparison, one example being the final 10 minutes against Liverpool at Anfield in season 03/04. His first touch on the ball was inside the centre-right corridor, he followed that up with a shot on target, or he may have just missed to the right. When he popped up there, there was a chance that we could steal the points late-on in that season closer. Always thought that SBR underutilized Robert in this sense.

As already mentioned/posted somewhere in this thread i still think his future lies in the heart of the engine room, as a ball-carrying & rebounding/deeper playing central midfielder - especially as first receiver out of our own half, with space to run into. His defensive reading of the play is solid, and he has some physical presence and durability about him - enough to cover the defensive side of the shift.

What's needed is a manager who is able to spot particular attributes in a player, and be prepared to persist with any so-called experiment/position change.

Not by everyone though, which is the key.

Never said that. My last comment was not a intended to a blanket statement. They know who they are

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/newcastle/article5854476.ece

 

From The Times March 6, 2009

 

Bassong has been a rare positive in another gruelling season for Newcastle. Signed from Metz last summer, the 22-year-old Frenchman has been heralded as a success story for the recruitment department that is led by Dennis Wise, the executive director (football), but Bassong has credited Kevin Keegan, the former Newcastle manager, for his discovery. “I came to Newcastle because my agent knew Kevin Keegan and my agent told him he had me and that I was a good player at Metz,” he said. “Kevin had seen me play one or two times for France Under-21 and he asked my agent if I could come for a trial.”

 

 

Pisses all over the myth that Keegan had become too 'out-of-touch' - ie. no longer a holder of the mechanics of being able to spot promising players, he no longer had the contacts in the player agent merry go round etc - thanks his lengthy hiatus from professional football.

A myth that was peddled here.

There were near-misses under the old regime - a board which for the majority of it's watch backed it's managers in the transfer market - and plenty of them, but it wasn't through the fault of not trying.

The FA-Cup defeat against Chelsea under Robson, and Souness' ego overriding our Uefa Cup campaign in 04/05 are the most recent examples.

Under the current regime, at least while Mr 'Pile em' Sell em' Cheap' stays on during my lifetime. Lucky to have a run at any type of silverware imo........... unless we have embark on a cinderella run in one of the Cups. Under Ashley we're now one of the league's 'water treaders' ie. perennial survival campaigners, with a hopeful deep cup-run being it's backdoor route into Europe. Ala Villa in it's final years under Ellis, and Birmingham recently.

And given the strength, in terms of squad depth, of the so-called clubs who don't place importance on The Cups that's unlikely nowadays. United, Arsenal and Chelsea are more than likely & capable of crashing the competitions' later stages with it's 2nd tier players. And there are more adventurous ambitious clubs out there who are looking for their first trophy/scalp as a sign of progress under their respective regimes ie. Man City and Villa

1

 

There's far worse than us in this league. The 6th best team in the country couldn't beat us with a man extra. We'll stay up because there's at least 5 teams worse than us this season.

And that 6th best team was without it's top midfield creator - Arteta - for more than 80 minutes, and devoid of it's no.1 goal sneak in Cahill.

Cahill is one those players who has unnerving habit of breaking a deadlock in a game's closing minutes, especially against an outfield who sets it's stall out to defend. He has often been the so-called man of the moment at Goodison, when a visiting side has looked to hold-out for a draw late on. He would've been a danger man/a threat on the weekend, 2nd half in particular.

His movement into the box eventually catches a defensive-minded outfield out. All it takes is a momentary lapse in concentration, for somebody to not pick him up one those runs into the box. And for an outfield who has spent a considerable effort - physically, and mentally ie. positional discipline - that is the time where it's most vulnerable to a Cahill/Scholes type.

Our outfield - down do it's defensive approach/mindset after Nolan's sending off - was always going to be capable of limiting Saha and Jo's effectiveness and stood a decent decent chance of holding out without the above mentioned players onboard. Saha isn't quite the player he once was, the athletic ball carrier & shooter who could worry teams outside the box and Jo imo is reliant on an ammunition provider. Jo isn't the a-typical creative/floating Brazilian forward, or somebody comparable to Robinho. Not a player capable of dropping back into the hole, to produce something purely off the dribble.

Opportunists - especially off-the-ball - of Cahill's ilk, and those who are willing to drift inside to gamble & create in the so-called hole - of Arteta & Ronaldo's calibre.... and i'll throw Robert in for good measure - are greater threats than an upfront striking tandem, that is against a centrally compressed outfield whose central players are more conscious of providing cover inside the the box while the wide-playing midfielders are prepared to put in a purposeful defense shift/cut-off the angle's to the crossing positions nearer to the bylines. A ten man outfield is more conscious of taking out that particular 'One-two punch', they'll give up the deeper positions as the trade-off. A compressed & deep defending outfield will chew up the deep crossing game all game, as mentioned before it's a fair trade-off for a ten man outfield defending fro it's life, and Everton lacked the keys needed to unlock this defensive trade-off. Be it those keys being just two aforementioned elements.

Circumstances played massively in our favour imo, and that was down to who wasn't on the park........ especially after the 7/8 minute mark.

Question for Happy Face.

 

Do you think Gordon Brown did a good job when he was in charge of the economy?

 

Spend, Spend, Spend, Borrow, Spend, Borrow, Spend, Borrow, Spend (etc etc).

 

Now the s*** has hit the fan due a lack of foundation to the spending and we have to take a hit in terms of spending for a while. Its not pretty but we will come out of the other end in a better long term position than we went into it.

 

Ring any bells closer to St James Park?

 

No, I don't think Brown did a good job.

 

I don't think Shepherd did either.

 

Nor do I think frugality is the way to save the economy.

 

We need to spend our way out of it.

 

Now you see fundamnetally I agree that in both the economy and for the Toon that spending is needed for the long term good of both.

 

However my view (again on both points) is that money should be directed at rebuilding infrastructure, be that roads, schools, hospitals, communications or the academy, buying younger players with room to develop and training facilities.

 

Of course some money needs to be spent on the here and now, money in the pocket of the man on the street (interest rate cuts, VAT cuts (wrong move but its happened so I can include it..), or investment in the first team. If you can balance out the cost of improving the here and now with proceeds from clearing out the dross then its all good.

 

I've said it before, but with the exception of Given we've replaced every player who has left the club with one of better quality or of a similar standard but at lower cost. That. Is. Good. Business. It could even be argued that we didn't need to replace Given directly anyway.

 

The summer is pivotal, we're running out of dross with any sort of resale value and desperately need to improve the centre of midfield and in all likelyhood replace Owen. A Left Back would be nice to push Enrique on, unless one of the reserve players is ready to step up to provide this.

 

the more he leaves it, the longer it costs to get back. It's just more proof in my eyes that he hasn't got a clue, or doesn't have the desire. I don't accept that rebuilding means creating a situation whereby your best and most important players want to leave the club for career reasons and ambition, this tells you pretty much everything.

 

 

 

 

Re: my signature. And daresay, imo the disharmony exists beyond those who have departed already - ie. Given, N'Zogbia - and another whose departure is imminent  ie. Owen.

 

I couldn't give a toss. It beats selling your best players and competing for years at the level of the Charltons of this world any day. Did all those who faked mock outrage give up their Cup Final tickets a few months later, and the season after, out of principle ?

 

 

 

Without Ashley, how would we have paid our bills?

 

They planned to put some of their own money in.

 

Oh man I just spat Grolsch out my nose

 

Banks don't do loans you can't pay for very often - you have to guarantee it.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/ridsdales-grand-dreams-bankrupted-by-debts-on-balance-sheet-596293.html

 

Ridsdale's grand dreams bankrupted by debts on balance sheet

 

By Nick Harris

 

 

Saturday, 1 February 2003

 

On 26 September 2001, Leeds United considerably extended their debts by issuing £60m in 25-year "loan notes" – effectively taking out a £60m mortgage, guaranteed against future season-ticket sales.

 

 

On 26 September 2001, Leeds United considerably extended their debts by issuing £60m in 25-year "loan notes" – effectively taking out a £60m mortgage, guaranteed against future season-ticket sales. The money was borrowed at a fixed annual interest rate of 7.695 per cent. The first repayment of interest on the loan was more than £4m. Capital repayments will not start until September 2004. The annual repayments will then be around £7m. But that's for the future.

 

The minutiae in the loan agreement speaks volumes about the current financial crisis at Elland Road. The club, with chairman Peter Ridsdale as gambler-in-chief, paid £890,000 in fees to arrange the loan. It borrowed money even to pay those fees. Ridsdale, incidentally, has been paid £1m by the club in the past two years. A million here, a million there, so the debts have risen. But the loan was only necessary in the first place because of spending – by David O'Leary, with Ridsdale's backing – on players and wages.

 

By the end of the 1999-00 season, O'Leary, who had taken over from George Graham in late 1998, had bought 11 players costing around £34.4m, having sold players for around £19m. His purchases included Danny Mills, Michael Bridges and Olivier Dacourt. It seemed a good deal because Leeds finished third and gained access to the Champions' League.

 

During the season that saw the run to the Champions' League semi-final in 2001, O'Leary signed five more players, including Mark Viduka, Rio Ferdinand and Robbie Keane, for a total outlay of £36m. He sold nine players for £9m. The deficit of £27m was made worse by a huge rise in the wage bill. The damage was already being done. Failure to qualify for the following season's Champions' League, in 2001-02 (and again the next year), only compounded the situation. No Champions' League meant a reduction in annual income of around £15m per year. O'Leary paid with his job.

 

Since O'Leary took over at Elland Road, Leeds have spent around £90m on players. Revenue from sales, before yesterday's offloading of Jonathan Woodgate to Newcastle, had been around £68m. Even this does not tell the whole story. That £68m in receipts might not actually materialise. In the cases of Ferdinand and Robbie Fowler, for example, the full fee is contingent on the players' success. To be fair, that was also the case with Fowler's move from Liverpool to Elland Road and Keane's from Internazionale.

 

The increase in the club's wage bill in the last few years has also been crippling. In the year to June 2002, the wage bill was £53.6m, up £10m on the previous year. These figures come from Leeds' annual report of 2002. The same report showed that the club made a loss of £34m in the previous year. The club's net debts, on 30 June 2002, had risen to £77.9m, and that was after the sale of Ferdinand (£30m) and Keane (£7m).

 

No wonder Ridsdale sold Ferdinand to Manchester United. He was desperate for the cash, which made all the proclamations about Ferdinand's lack of loyalty shallow indeed. Keane's departure was another necessary sale. It helped curb the debts and also removed around £1m from the wage bill. Lee Bowyer's departure was also primarily a question of cutting the wage bill. Ditto Fowler, whose stay at Elland Road will see a net deficit of at least £5m in transfer fees, plus his wages for 14 months. Woodgate's departure will also cut the wage bill and the £9m fee will allow further stabilisation of the balance sheet.

 

How quickly things change. "Our aim is to become the clear No 2 club in the country behind Manchester United," Adam Pearson, then the Leeds commercial director, said in December 1999 as Leeds sat atop the Premiership. "The football is central to everything and Peter Ridsdale has had the bottle to push on rather than consolidate." Pearson is now running Hull City.

 

One last quote. "Of all the great clubs I have worked with in football, none have had the infrastructure, commitment and potential of Leeds United. The team has all the necessary qualities to become the country's best for years to come." So said Terry Venables, in inch-high letters that filled a whole page in the Leeds 2002 Annual Report

 

 

I noticed that the people who claim we should be borrowing money and spending big have kept very quiet about this article. Hardly surprising when you consider the results of Leeds gambling on their massive outlay providing guaranteed future success.

I never advocated the sort of borrowing - or spending levels - some touted when Ashley first brought the club. There was talk of a possible 100m spending spree when he first took the reigns, but never did i anticipate the sort of 80's reminiscent 'grocery store'/buy, swap & sell transfer policy in the wake of the previous regime's departure.

Back to your point. And the sort of spending during the Summers of 01/02 and 02/03 was by no means silly, although somebody like an Ashley - or a Llambl'arse - would have despised the notion of picking a 'Woodgate'-type player on credit, or paying the fee via two instalments, despite the potential of that particular signing to be a major difference maker down the season's final stretch.

In addition. IMO there was/is a major difference in borrowing the amount Risdale acquired in a bid to secure one of just four places on the table, and banking the club's financial future on the outcome..............  as opposed to borrowing - say 10-15m in Jan, which would have eliminated the need for Kinnear to sell first - in order secure any finish above the bottom 3 and the ensuing financial catastrophe which is associated with relegation.

At the start of the Jan transfer window we had points in the bag - and a little bit of breathing room between ourselves and the bottom 3 - with a favorable fixture list on the horizon during the window as our injury woes began to bite into the squad's apparent lack of depth.

It would've been a shorter odds gamble if Ashley showed a hint of guts in January - with roughly half a season to be played - in comparison to Risdale's gamble where there were too many intangibles in play. A couple of those intangibles being: not taking into account the sort of spending that was to be carried out by their immediate rivals, and whether or not a bolter - ourselves in 01/02, Villa this season, Everton the year before - would arise from the mid-table ranks to provide a serious threat to what was a high stakes bet on a 'one season result'.

Ironically NUSC have operated in many ways pretty much along the same lines as Ashley and co have with Newcastle United in terms of poor communication and bad management etc. yet many fans are not only willing to forgive and forget Ashley and co, but some have actually bent over backwards to defend them. And yet NUSC gets dogs abuse. I find that incredibly sad.

 

They can't be condemned and written off after a mere few months in operation. If NUSC don't get off the ground and become a fully fledged supporters club it will say far more about the wider fan base than anything of the NUSC or their members and would in terms of the long-term be a sore loss to the club and us as fans I feel.

 

They do however badly need some new direction and perhaps leadership not to mention ideas. I support the idea of a supporters club but not so much NUSC as they are at the moment, but lets not forget these are just ordinary people who don't deserve to be judged by so seemingly high standards and professionalism.

 

They need time and we as fans must afford if not the people running NUSC, the supporters club itself, the time it will obviously take to become more than just a protest group, that can only come however with more fan involvement.

 

And speaking of more fan involvement I think the people behind NUSC should give serious thought to free membership because at current I can't see it getting the kind of numbers needed to be anything other than what it is today.

In relation to this point. Did Man United corresponding supporters' group attract a membership based fee, and did the associating pooling of any fees lead to them acquiring an eventual & minor stake in the club?

As for the 'installment/staggered payment based manner of purchasing players' vs the new approach adopted by the Ashley regime ie. they'll only make a jump into the transfer market in the event of them being able to pay the fee in it's entirety, upfront - even if it forces the manager to sell players in order to make things happen.

One can see the obvious benefits of the former, when looking at our purchase of Woodgate, back in the dark days of Shepherd and Co. *Half the fee was payed upfront, while  the other half of the fee was to payed off 12 months after the transfer deal. *as per the agreement outlined via the press release given at the time of the transfer.

Woodgate provided stability to the back 4, at a time when the race for 3rd and 4th was on the line, and his signing was a major contributor to our second top 4 finish, considering that our midfield line didn't quite dominate & set the match tempo on a consistent basis as they did in 2001/02.

I suppose those who hark on the negatives with regards to such dealings - ie. those who share a somewhat fanatical obsession with the daily spreadsheets, of the day - will fail to apply the beautiful science of hindsight to this example.

Crying shame that. How dare they considere purchasing such a player, a difference maker, on so-called credit - to borrow Llamblarse's terminology. Damn that f**cking Shepherd.

The antithesis to Wenger being Souness ie. a manager who was content to belittle/burn his players via the media. Whether that be in the form attribute weakness', a grudge against a player and so forth. The endgame being losing your best players, and those whom those players formed alliances/bonds with in the dressing room.

It's what got us into shit - ie. losing key players Bellamy & Robert, and the manager losing the dressing room - a few seasons back when morale hit rock bottom. I'll never forget Dyer and Bowyer's bust-up, more so because at the time some here - in their defense of the Souness regime - believed that in the wake of Bellamy's departure team morale had hit a something of an upturn.

I know whose psychological approach to man-managing players i prefer.

It's all good & well to try and attempt a route of open dialogue HTT - ie. explain the circumstances, pull him into line - but let i remind you of a similar occurrence - where interested parties tried a similar thing. About 10 years ago. around 2000 if i recall.

Umbro - Sports Direct's major suppliers - and Ashley's immediate rivals tried a simlar course of action with a maverick sales merchant in the form of Ashley. Ashley was undermining the retail value of Umbro's chief product, and driving Umbro's other major retail customers to the wall by selling replica shirts at a price the likes of JJB were unable to match.

It may officially be known as collusion - as ruled by the Fair Trading body - but look at the situation from Umbro's angle. In an ideal world they don't want a/ the replica shirt market dominated by a single retailer, and with just one retail customer - ie. Sports Direct - on it's books in the UK. Ashley would've held the balance of power in terms of being able to set a purchase/wholesale price, and they would've lost a foothold into a major market if Ashley had jumped ship towards another distributor. And b/ their product was being devalued, by Ashley's maverick selling practices. Looking at it that way Umbro were imo attempting to pull Ashley into line, by opening constructive dialogue with him - along with Ashley's immediate competitors.

What did the Umbro and Co receive for their troubles? When you read about the manner as to how Messr Ashley stitched them all up, the answer is an act of deceitful 'corporate back-shanking/stabbing of the highest order'.

Our club imo has become an extension of his sports chain. Ashley, with his association/ownership of a major club, has added an dimension of legitimacy to what is a cheap/knockdown retail empire...... or as as HTL described it, a poor man's JJB. As witnessed by him blowing the whistle on the likes of Umbro, Whelan and Co he is a man/operator who doesn't take kindly to being told the sort of path he should be taking where his business operation is concerned.

And that's what the club is now, Ashley's business operation. And as such, input such as the above - or enmasse - will imo be met with a sense of dismissal.

You're wasting your breath HTT. Blokes like Ashley, who have track record on their side, can't be trusted or negotiated with. Keegan failed to open dialogue with him at the end of the Summer transfer window, and he was effectively snubbed off while the owner was too busy getting pissed on then other side of the Atlantic.

One day somebody will have obvious motive - ie. what Ashley is doing the club/converting the club into a bonafide 2nd rater - and opportunity on their side.

I knew quite a few lads - some older than me, more combative - who were on the verge of following a similar route, as McKeag stubbornly clung to his his seat of power. All it takes is motive, an otherwise unlikely opportunity, and a few pints/diminished responsibility added to the mix.

To be fair, The Sunday Sun have broke a lot of big Newcastle related stories so i wouldnt dismiss this as total bull.

In addition, Farrington is one of the better writers out there.