sicsfingeredmong

Again I agree, my whole point all along is that a club of NUFC's stature or size whatever you want to call it should not be getting beat at home by such margins regardless of the opposition and need to somehow install a set of standards or criteria on that basis whereby finishing outside of the top 6 and getting stuffed simply isn't acceptable on any level and to run the club in that way. It was others who challenged my statement that NUFC is indeed a big club or a club of stature which resulted in this needless "big club" debate unfolding. To my mind there is no argument to be made against the stature of the club because its pretty damn obvious NUFC is a big club or a club of stature, along with several other similar sized clubs I might add like Spurs, Villa, Everton, Chelsea and maybe Leeds. Of course the team itself isn't a top 6 side, far from it, but the club is although you'd never realise that the way it has been ran these past few years, the players that have been signed to play for it (not all but a good number), some of the managers that have found their way here and the way a good number of fans not only accept this but also tolerate it. Its a catch 22 like, I know. While I was extremely proud of the fans' reaction to every one of Liverpool's goals, I can't help feeling somewhere down the line we need to say enough is enough and demand better of our club and those connected with it, to hold those responsible to higher standards rather than simply accepting and tolerating things. It has to come from within the club I know and from the top. That was part of the appeal with KK and a big part of why fans held him in such high esteem because under him (first time around anyway) he created a set of standards for the club and fans in which to live by if you like, i.e. to aspire to be the best we can, to challenge at the very top, to not accept mediocrity - to go for it. And he showed the way, what this club can achieve and be. There is no reason why NUFC cannot get right back into the upper tier of English football but for a lack of standards which as we all know does not run through the club at any level sadly. It has always been an issue with me - standards. Every season NUFC as a club should lay its cards on the table. We are a top 6 club so that is where we will aspire to be by the end of the season, anything less is unacceptable. This should be hammered into managers and players alike rather than going into a season merely hoping for the best or just getting on with things and accepting what comes our way like some added bonus. Players like Nicky Butt and Shola Ameobi should not be acceptable representatives of our team, in short deemed good enough because they most certainly aren't. There should be inquiries into such defeats as the 5-1 hammering at home to Liverpool. It isn't a case of who do we think we are, it's about standards and pride which we need to start setting and living by. Liverpool fans booed their team off a few weeks back at home despite going top of the league. As a Newcastle fan where I'm conditioned to accept and tolerate mediocrity and reminded by my own fans that NUFC are not a big club I considered their reaction as extreme ungratefulness. But that's why LFC are the club they are, they demand more, not just their fans, but as a club. Its ingrained in every level of that club to strive towards success and to be the best they can and to say f*** off to anything that falls below that. It started with Shankly for them, someone as an individual who had high standards and immense pride. For us KK(a proudct of the Shankly Liverpool) set the ball rolling back in the 90s but down the line we've badly lost our way. One of the reasons why I love KK is because when we had just achieved promotion he was asked where he saw our place in the top-flight the following season and he looked around those clubs we'd face and asked himself what they had that we didn't and his answer was better players maybe, more experience, but other than that f*** all else and in some cases a whole lot less than what we had so he said our place in the top flight is right at the top end of the table and that's where he would be looking towards rather than 17th or mid-table. And he took us there. Today our club requires someone with high standards and immense pride to install a similar mentality at SJP that we as fans can feed off. Looking at Ashley, Kinnear et al, I see no such person. So.... if they can't install such high standards I'm going to install my own. Are NUFC a top 6 club? Without a doubt. So from now on in I won't accept or tolerate anything less from my club. Is Shola good enough for us? Is he f*** so from now in I won't accept or tolerate such s**** wearing the colors of my team. Will it make a blind bit of difference to our fortunes? Will it f*** but it will make me feel a little bit better at least. I've had enough of pinning misguided hope on this manager, that manager, this campaign, that campaign, this player or that player and making endless excuses mostly to myself on their behalf when they repeatedly f*** up or make a mug of me like Mike Ashley did a fine job of doing over the summer and yes, KK, and Big Sam before him etc. etc. Of all our players I only have respect for Shay Given, a player who has high standards and immense pride in his game and the club. The rest can f*** right off as far as I'm concerned, if they all left tomorrow I wouldn't shed a tear for any of them. From now on in if they want a chance with me they have to earn it and show themselves worthy of playing for my club if not always in terms of skill and technique then in heart, commitment, desire, pride, and high standards which all cost nothing. Before all that though, as its Christmas and a new year is coming up I'll let them all off for their past "crimes" so I'm giving them all a fresh clean start, Kinnear and Ashley included, and even Dennis Wise. Err http://www.toontastic.net/board/style_emoticons/default/nufc.gif It's why i've never treated a full-time booing send-off, or a mass walk-out - as the worst of demonstrations - as taboo. On a similar note I was livid a few years back when our Souness-led team was applauded off the pitch at Cardiff, after being hammered/embarassed by United.

And it's the ideal way to blood the lad, without the harness of being closely checked during a game's more physical opening stages. His older brother - as a dribbling & quick ball-carrier - at times had a major impact while moonlighting on the flanks on the counter, and a few late season games in season 01-02 spring to mind. Notably one jinking run down the left flank, leading to an assist to Bernard. That game may have been away to Derby if i recall correctly, when we put them to the sword late on. I'd say that he appears to be more creative, to have more vision/or an eye for a final ball than Tressor after beating his man. I see him as somebody who can inflict some damage around the bylines, with the likes of Jonas & Guthrie inside and his elder brother was no slouch in this department. Especially when the former floats inside. Barton, when fit, is intelligent with his late off-the-ball movement/runs into the box. These just a players who can benefit from having such a player on the pitch/the right flank - another being Owen. N'Zogbia's inside play - off the ball - as a wideman is an under-recognized strength imo. When the game opens up late, you don't necessarily need a specialist crossing winger out there/operating wide in order to kill teams. Quick ball-carriers, who can get to the bylines are just about standard order. Bellamy, Lua-Lua, Martins have killed teams late and these are recent examples in our case. He may not be an all-out crossing type winger, but I see no reason as to why he shouldn't be injected into the fray on the right side, with 20 to go, especially with a lead & with the finishing line in sight.

A work colleague of mine, and a bigger "Ashley Brown Noser" than some found on the internet commented the following or thereabouts. "Today's result was a necessary lesson for the club. It's part of the club's learning curve as we/the club seek to slowly & gradually build under under Ashley's guidance at the top level. It's about gradually improvement" Take away any reference to us as a club, you'd be mistaken if the same bloke was talking about a newly promoted club. I cut my lunchbreak short, before my anger took hold of me............ in case i punched the Brown Noser in question, costing me a well paying job in the process.

Quell a recent rumour. Did Chris Mort, in recent months, return to SJP seeking/demanding outstanding payment for services rendered ie. Freshfield's involvement - legal paperwork etc - during Ashley's buy-out of The Halls and Shepherd.

or in simplified form; why were you so f***ing stupid as to buy the club without undertaking due diligence first? The bloke's a gambler, and it's not as if he has a consistent track record in being ultra conservative or cautious when buying companies. His respective purchases of Lillywhites - the deal was allegedly sealed & paid for on the same day - and Dunlop Slazenger are indicative of this. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/retailing/article703400.ece Therefore by now he is aware of & as a risk-taker should duly respect the risk involved when buying companies on a whim, without undertaking the necessary due diligence. That's why it was laughable, and a pisstake on his business track record, when he was bleating & complaining about inheriting debt, much of which was stadium related & managed debt. 100m+ (170m) for a club with arguably the 3rd largest supporter base in the country - with the merchandise income stream that entails - and a 50000 seater stadium. That equation, minus debt, for 100m+ is a joke. Ashley has lived and died by the sword, by making a habit of going on his gut instinct when spending big on his business acquirements. And up until recently his gut instinct has served him well. In this instance - ie his purchase of NUFC - his impulsiveness to quickly get a deal done has come apart at the seams. There comes a time when he has to simply die by the very same sword as well and accept it, a philosophy which has benefitted him.......... instead of bemoaning about inherited debt etc left by his predecessors.

Ashley, as a businessman through his dealings, has attracted that sort of pantomime and directed ill-feeling for a better part of a decade. To borrow a saying, s*** indeed doesn't fall far from a dog's arse. Mr Ashley brought it upon himself.

He installed an 'us against the world' type of mentality at Wimbledon, certainly at the first-team level as a motivational tool. But at Wimbledon his troopers were more blue-collar types/battlers in comparison to our list, and they reveled in sticking it up everybody else. I'm not sure how long and how far his 'hailstorm & bluster' approach will outlast his deficiencies with regards to his overall tactical approach in terms of pattern of play, and as a matchday tactician ie. his use of substitutions. Keegan was a motivator, a ranter when needed, and an astute tactician. Those factors kept us up last season. Shallow that it was but our 1st choice eleven was more purpose built to play the sort of football employed in our relegation fight last season, as opposed to the battling/against the wall type of football employed so far & during his tenureship at Wimbledon. With a more cultured set of footballers at his disposal, imo it will take more than just fire & brimstone in order to keep this ship afloat over the course of more than a half a season.

Owen is a difference maker out on the pitch. With his box-instincts he is able to drag out an unlikely result, *against the run of play. *note his return while playing under Souness. Owen at Everton: a top 6 spot just about nailed on imo. They should break away from Pompey and the like. Us without Owen: there will be plenty of takers that we'll be relegated....... from pundits, bookies and punters.

Owen may just be the difference between staying up and going down. In this case i'd rather keep him for the remainder of the season and watch him leave for free than sell him for £8m - £10m in January, money we may not be able to use and which doesnt buy that much these days anyway. Pointless comparison with arsenal and man utd, if we were as strong as them we'd be able to sell Owen too, but we aren't. And i seem to remember Arsenal being strung along by Flamini in his last year of contract, keeping him on to the end and letting him go for free rather than selling months before. iirc a similar thing happened with Edu. Summed up perfectly. The financial fall-out as a result of going down, combined with the task of getting back up, by far outweighs the gains made for the balance sheets ie. offloading his weekly wage package, and a couple of mill via a knockdown transfer fee.

As for Mr Ashley's brood of Johnny-Come-Latelys, his kids who have bought into the whole Newcastle thing. The can f*** off as well.

I've been away on holidays for nearly a couple of weeks, so i'll address a couple of points raised by Baggio as there were intangibles involved - especially re:Rose. Danny Rose walked away from his scholarship at Leeds, round about two weeks prior to Spurs signing him. His move to Spurs has been viewed as controversial. If Bates hadn't taken the 1m fee the matter would've ended up at the tribunal, in front of a bunch of FA appointed lawyer types who essentially reach a compensation figure by crunching the numbers ie. training costs, time in their system, and *whatever 1st team appearances they've racked up along the way. *which usually isn't much, ala Bostock's handful of 1st team appearances at Palace. Leeds didn't exactly have a bargaining position of power, when a possible fee - via the tribunal - would've been lower. It was better for Bates to cut his losses, and best not to ruin what has been a pound-spinning transfer market relationship for Leeds in recent years. Looking at the two player's respective contractual status' at the club - ie. Delph & Rose - you're comparing apples & oranges by comparing the so-called merit of our 1m Delph bid to what Leeds no doubt begrudgingly accepted. As for Bostock. Jordan effectively played Russian Roulette with Spurs on this one. Initial reports suggest that Spurs' early offer was competitive - ie. not far off the 5m number being touted - and Jordan got a little too cheeky, and the matter went to tribunal where Jordan lowered his expectations in terms of the compensation figure he was expecting. That being the 2m, or thereabouts figure mentioned. Funny how the tribunal system can lower a chairmans demands on a dime, as far what they should receive in terms of fee/compensation. You've got another thing coming if you think our club can go around an attempt to sign top prospects enmasse, *by limping in like paupers and offering derisory sums which are comparable to merely compensating a club for their training & player development expenses. We'll have the door slammed in our face more often than not. Our failed Delph bid is an example. The Rangers of the football landscape don't just fall into your lap out of sheer bloody good fortune. Sometimes the club has to go the extra mile. *to borrow NE5's phrasing ,"behaving like 2nd raters". For years, in his business enterprises as a cheap merchant-type, Ashley has taken the piss out of his wholesale suppliers. Umbro is the most notable case example. His dealings with Umbro for a decade or thereabouts should make for some interesting reading for you Baggio, and other Ashley-ites. The transfer market is a different beast entirely, one can't just play hardball and expect to pay well below the odds enmasse in it's acquisitions at the supply level. One thing you often read about among business competitors, is that at least there is a certain level of reluctant & begrudging respect for one another. In relation to Ashley i've heard of very few blokes who have attracted the sort of ill-feeling which Ashley has. Ethically challenged, in how he has gone about his business, both in terms of scamming *suppliers and customers alike seems to be the common chorus of feeling. His relationship with Umbro has been raised, and Nike at one stage - when Ashley was holding out, when offloading his Umbro shares - threatened to blacklist him. In his short time here, as owner of NUFC, we've trodden on numerous toes in the transfer already. Gone are the days when the previous board largely sealed deals for talented & raw prospects like Viana and Jenas etc, with a minimum of fuss and without being told to f***off. A phone call, or fax, from the club when interested in a highly rated prospect-type used to be worth something. I doubt that to be the case anymore. *Unlike the business world it's impracticable for a football club owner to attempt to lower the wholesale market - for what he pays at the pump proverbially speaking - price by strategically acquiring shareholdings in bodies which are central to his business interests. In the football world, where player/supply acquirement is involved, they have to at least try to tempt an unwilling seller with a figure which doesn't result in the club being laughed at and virtually told to f**ck off. *Mike Ashley 101.

Not sure where you're getting the figure of an extra £2 million from, £1.25million will be the most they pay if he reaches a certain amount of appearances. Not that much more than we've paid for either Tozer ot Kadar. Delph would be comparable to Jenas now because he's broke into the first team and established himself as a regular, at the time of our bid he was a reserve player who had made a few substitute appearances and was rated in the same bracket as Danny Rose, funnily enough Spurs signed him from Leeds the previous Summer for £1 million. Overall the staggered payment system - when having to pay a higher fee for a prospect/project type of player - is the means often adopted by Levy. *This time around they were bloodly lucky the tribunal ruled heavily in their favour, and was odds at what Jordan was demanding. They never have to stretch the balance sheets, by coughing the lot upfront, yet they're able to maintain a balanced buying policy of also buying established 1st teamers who naturally would cut a sizeable hole into the weekly wage bracket. *my bad: i didn't follow up on this. Comparing Delph to Rose, and their likely cost, is like comparing apples to oranges. The nature of grassroots recruits eminates from spotting attrributes at matches which attract the barest minimum of attendance ie. matches pertaining to the respective levels. If scouts, and club's negotiators further down the track based their buying valautions on camparisons such as substitute apps they may as well utilise goolgkle

Nothing wrong with paying the going rate, when speculating on potential. It irks me when clubs such as ours - under Ashley, same applies to Chelsea by picking another of Leeds' prospects no that long ago for 200k - miss the boat when spotting talent prior to the 15yr mark, only to then try & pennypinch by committing daylight robbery in attempting sign them up a couple of years later for a solitary million pounds or less. Same has applied to Arsenal and their respective purchases of Pennant & Walcott, yet there is a bit of a myth that they're building a proverbial footballing empire - where the basis of which has been their youth ranks - for peanuts and that we/Ashley have been duly correct by following the so-called Arsenal route. our problem was nothing to do with trying to be too much like arsenal and everything to do with trying to be too much like spurs. In building an impressive list of youngsters our problem involves adopting a recruiting model - pertaining to the youth ranks, and the amount of money we're prepared to part with - which admittedly worked wonders for Arsenal when clubs were not so diligent in protecting their top youngsters from predatory & opportunistic buyers. That model/buying policy is dated and no longer relevant, and this is thanks to the dynamic of today's transfer market relating to the 15-18 yr old bracket. erm, no. there is no point debating this with you as you're not going to listen anyway. Everybody knows the Continental set-up hasn't worked, as was the case at Spurs. That isn't being debated here, and it's been discussed in other threads. In terms of recruiting kids with a huge scope for potential, and paying the going rate, Spurs' ambition has to be defended to a degree. Signing kids like Ranger, for next to nothing due to extenuating circumstances - ie. a kid being released due to on-going disciplinary problems - doesn't happen often. Ranger opportunistically fell into our lap. There is an accepted going rate, and Championship outfits are loath to part with fees lower than 5m - that's a rough figure - for kids who are highly thought of within England's respective U'19 and U'21 ranks. My issue lies with the board's unwillingness to part with anything over 1m for such a player, in comparison to what we've been prepared to outlay for the likes Jenas - to what Spurs are willing to pay for as speculating on Bostock's scope for improvement. Yet for a comparable player, or the kid i highlighted when quoting the original article, we are laughed-off for our pisstake on what the market is saying. You, for your own reasons, have a differing opinion. But in my eyes the club's ambition isn't good enough, and in this instance the belated effort shown on our part - ie. when actually having cough up a transfer fee, for what is a risk based on speculating on a player's potential - is an embarrassment. The club, under Ashley's ownership, has truly become a hot-winded shrinking violet. Spurs are only paying £700,000 up front for Bostock, hardly speculating on his improvement. You also can't compare Jenas to Delph, Jenas was an established first team player at Forest where as Delph hadn't even made a start for Leeds when we moved for him in the Summer. Sizeable outlay all the same, and 2m or thereabouts will be added to that when he makes enough 1st team appearances - the reported amount seems to be 40. Redknapp will give him a fair crack at the whip. Add substitute appearances into the equation, and that should roughly take about a season or thereabouts. A three million pound outlay for a 15yr old, over the space of season and not much longer. That's fairly speculative if the lad doesn't make it at the Senior International, or fizzles out in a couple of years down the track as per Jenas. And the Jenas comparison still stands. The lad and already captain of the Reserve team, before we made a move. It was clear the lad was being fast-tracked towards the 1st team, at the time when we spotted him. The strength of Leeds' academy has to respected. They produced a line of solid, premiership able players and before Risdale went crazy with the cheque book their academy formed a solid base for the first team. Clubs like Leeds & Nottingham Forest don't let the most promising products of thier respective academies on the cheap. Another bolter at Youth level, Dos Santos, will ultimately cost Spurs 9m. Nearly half of that payed for initially, for a lad who barely made a handful of 1st team starts for Barcelona's 1st team. Much of the speculative risk, and what a club is willing to pay, boils down the team's needs/areas which needed to built on. Spurs hope that Bostock will eventually fill the current void in their midfield set-up, subsequent to Carrick's departure and their failure to replace him. Our scouts are looking at our need areas - young & athletic goalscorers - if the acquisition of Ranger is anything to go, but the acquistion of Ranger was an extremely fortuitous one. Such players don't arrive for next to nothing all that often. The club has peddled it's youth orientated recruiting line for well over a year now. And it's sensible provided that the policy is balanced and that we embark on signing seasoned pros as well, and i've given due credit when we signed Collocini in the relevant thread. But the aforementioned youth buying policy amounts to nothing but hot air if the board isn't prepared to facilitate a strategy when attempting to seize an opportunity to sign such players from under the noses of our rivals, before their scouting antennae have well and truly risen - as per other clubs' reported interest. In this is recruiting strategy supposedly geared towards us sneaking back into the top-6, aka steady improvement to use your own phrasing.

Couldn't agree more. Not only that, they compressed their defensive shape and we needed more movement upfront in the final 1/3. Ameobi should've made way for Owen immediately. owen should've been on from the start. failing that,at half time given that we were chasing the game. You're absolutely correct, but JK has misplaced faith that Ameobi can be next John Fashunu ie. his immobile, yet prolific, targetman. Unless JK is struck by sudden change of mind with respect to his coaching/strategic ideology is suspect that Shola might well be one of the first names added to his team sheet on a week-to-week basis, and that's with a healthy striking department at his disposal.

Nothing wrong with paying the going rate, when speculating on potential. It irks me when clubs such as ours - under Ashley, same applies to Chelsea by picking another of Leeds' prospects no that long ago for 200k - miss the boat when spotting talent prior to the 15yr mark, only to then try & pennypinch by committing daylight robbery in attempting sign them up a couple of years later for a solitary million pounds or less. Same has applied to Arsenal and their respective purchases of Pennant & Walcott, yet there is a bit of a myth that they're building a proverbial footballing empire - where the basis of which has been their youth ranks - for peanuts and that we/Ashley have been duly correct by following the so-called Arsenal route. our problem was nothing to do with trying to be too much like arsenal and everything to do with trying to be too much like spurs. In building an impressive list of youngsters our problem involves adopting a recruiting model - pertaining to the youth ranks, and the amount of money we're prepared to part with - which admittedly worked wonders for Arsenal when clubs were not so diligent in protecting their top youngsters from predatory & opportunistic buyers. That model/buying policy is dated and no longer relevant, and this is thanks to the dynamic of today's transfer market relating to the 15-18 yr old bracket. erm, no. there is no point debating this with you as you're not going to listen anyway. Everybody knows the Continental set-up hasn't worked, as was the case at Spurs. That isn't being debated here, and it's been discussed in other threads. In terms of recruiting kids with a huge scope for potential, and paying the going rate, Spurs' ambition has to be defended to a degree. Signing kids like Ranger, for next to nothing due to extenuating circumstances - ie. a kid being released due to on-going disciplinary problems - doesn't happen often. Ranger opportunistically fell into our lap. There is an accepted going rate, and Championship outfits are loath to part with fees lower than 5m - that's a rough figure - for kids who are highly thought of within England's respective U'19 and U'21 ranks. My issue lies with the board's unwillingness to part with anything over 1m for such a player, in comparison to what we've been prepared to outlay for the likes Jenas - to what Spurs are willing to pay for as speculating on Bostock's scope for improvement. Yet for a comparable player, or the kid i highlighted when quoting the original article, we are laughed-off for our pisstake on what the market is saying. You, for your own reasons, have a differing opinion. But in my eyes the club's ambition isn't good enough, and in this instance the belated effort shown on our part - ie. when actually having cough up a transfer fee, for what is a risk based on speculating on a player's potential - is an embarrassment. The club, under Ashley's ownership, has truly become a hot-winded shrinking violet.

Couldn't agree more. Not only that, they compressed their defensive shape and we needed more movement upfront in the final 1/3. Ameobi should've made way for Owen immediately.

Perhaps you can ask any Cockney journo that he or she should recommend the above mentioned player to Ashley, as part of whatever sort of PR & bullshit based exclusive Ashley embarks should he still own the club by then................. he'll arrive on the cheap in January.

Nothing wrong with paying the going rate, when speculating on potential. It irks me when clubs such as ours - under Ashley, same applies to Chelsea by picking another of Leeds' prospects no that long ago for 200k - miss the boat when spotting talent prior to the 15yr mark, only to then try & pennypinch by committing daylight robbery in attempting sign them up a couple of years later for a solitary million pounds or less. Same has applied to Arsenal and their respective purchases of Pennant & Walcott, yet there is a bit of a myth that they're building a proverbial footballing empire - where the basis of which has been their youth ranks - for peanuts and that we/Ashley have been duly correct by following the so-called Arsenal route. To be fair how many of these young players such as Delph have we actually gone for and failed to bring in recently? It's not to do with the 'amount of' it's more to do with our belated efforts to recruit the sort of potential relating to kids like Delph, and the wide gap our front-office places in between it's valuation and that of the club who are simply adherring to the trend of today's market. Ashley, who places the financial limits on the football front office and what they've been prepared to bid for the likes of Delph is sad reflection of these limits, is at severe odds to what the market is saying. Walcott, Jenas and Bostock have been listed as examples, and the subsequent figures have been raised. For a club which has adopted a broadscale youth policy, by the way of recruiting, we'll be going nowhere fast if we're not prepared to compromise - when needed - to an unwilling seller's demands and they're know-how of a market which is no longer reflective of top-flight clubs taking the piss out of financially unstable clubs in the 1st division or lower.

Nothing wrong with paying the going rate, when speculating on potential. It irks me when clubs such as ours - under Ashley, same applies to Chelsea by picking another of Leeds' prospects no that long ago for 200k - miss the boat when spotting talent prior to the 15yr mark, only to then try & pennypinch by committing daylight robbery in attempting sign them up a couple of years later for a solitary million pounds or less. Same has applied to Arsenal and their respective purchases of Pennant & Walcott, yet there is a bit of a myth that they're building a proverbial footballing empire - where the basis of which has been their youth ranks - for peanuts and that we/Ashley have been duly correct by following the so-called Arsenal route. our problem was nothing to do with trying to be too much like arsenal and everything to do with trying to be too much like spurs. In building an impressive list of youngsters our problem involves adopting a recruiting model - pertaining to the youth ranks, and the amount of money we're prepared to part with - which admittedly worked wonders for Arsenal when clubs were not so diligent in protecting their top youngsters from predatory & opportunistic buyers. That model/buying policy is dated and no longer relevant, and this is thanks to the dynamic of today's transfer market relating to the 15-18 yr old bracket.

This one struck a chord, particularly with the club's/Ashley's line of thinking that you can try and attain the pick of the up & coming talent pool for next to nothing ie. Leeds deriding our 1m offer. Bates was well within his right to laugh us off. To pick up such players - and i'll rewind the clock to our purchase of a similarly hyped Jenas, a dynamic & young central midfielder.... whom we payed 5m for - the club has to speculate on their ability/attributes and their scope for development, whilst paying the going rate. No surprise to hear the player mentioned being linked with some big clubs come January, for 5m. The days of picking up the likes of Anelka or their prized assets at around the 18yr old mark, from the relevant youth set-ups for minimal fees for million pounds, a few hundred K's or less are virtually over. Hence Ashley's, and formerly Mort's, viewpoint that we could operate on a Arsenal-based model - which accomplished much, & formed the framework of their success over the course of the ensuing decade & beyond - today's transfer market is an ill-conceived myth. It's just an excuse for penny-pinching on Ashley's part. Arsenal's best work in the transfer market occured about a decade ago, when Wenger virtually got the jump on his British rivals by raiding the French youth set-up at a minimal outlay - Anelka and Viera are the notable examples. Fast forward the clock a decade on, and Arsenal are forking out 10m for Nasri.... the going rate. According to Keegan we looked at the same player. What drew the red flag? The price tag, in comparison to what were prepared to and eventually payed for another French-based U'21 repesentative player in Bassong? The transfer market's bubble has burst, re- the youth ranks, and this has been so for a few years now, and Ashley never quite caught up with this. Purchases like Bassong - ie. a bargain, with some ability - are a rare thing nowadays. Unfortunately the club's grocery store transfer policy - scouring the lower leagues for bargains - is a departure from the current day transfer market reality where U'21 internationals are concerned/the prices which are duly placed upon their heads, and it may have cost us in picking up a couple of very promising prospects. Unless you attain these kids when they're around the 15yr old mark or earlier, the Arsenal model - in terms of measuring the quality of it's youth ranks (the 18yr old bracket) against it's outlay - is dated. While Ashley remains at the helm our chances of picking up the likes of Delph, or the pick of the U'21/19 crop, are slim. Cheaper prospects like Kadar - ie. 900k - and signing them broadscale as the youth buying policy is just about the club's current direction. It's a riskier & scattershot - abeit cheaper & penny-pinching - youth buying policy. We get mentioned twice yet you pick up on the one we didn't get, you base your post around that and don't mention the one we do get just so you can rip our transfer policy to bits. Let's mention that we acquired a player - in Ranger - who was released by his club for next to nothing when taking into account sign-on fees. Seems to fit the Ashley Criteria for Transfer Targets wherever possible, which has been duly adhered to by his right-hand men in the football front office. Provided that he was still contractually attached to Southhampton at the time - minus his disciplinary record & subsequent release - i don't think we would have signed him. Or more accurately the club probably would not have been prepared to outlay the amount needed to sign those youngsters who are thought to among the top echelon of the youth ranks, which as we've seen already can approach the figure already mentioned. I raise the point of comparison again. Shepherd sanctioned a 5m outlay to sign Jenas, who like Delph was playing beyond his listed U'19 representative level and was attracting similar praise based on potential, league form, and his displays at Youth International level. Yet in the case of Delph, a similarly related player to Jenas both in age and the other factors mentioned above, and under a new regime complete with a grocery store transfer policy we barely muster up a 1m bid. And here you are laughing at my take - which is based on comparative facts - on what has been a penny pinching transfer policy. A policy which compromises the club's ability to travel down the Mort-hyped Arsenal route by signing similarly & highly rated youngsters when a transfer fee - ie the going rate, as per Delph - is involved. Transfer fees which the likes of Spurs - ie. Bostock for an eventual fee of approx 5m - United and Arsenal have little objection paying now. Ashley being the Spreadsheet-orientated owner that he is hasn't accepted a reality which in time even Wenger has been forced to swallow, that is going by Arsenal's subsequent purchases of Walcott and Nasri. That scenario being that you can no longer build an impressive list of youngsters - the type needed to form the 1st team squad's back-bone for a decade or thereabouts - for peanuts by purely assembling a group of kids signed for fees hovering around the 1m mark or less, and free transfers.

Nothing wrong with paying the going rate, when speculating on potential. It irks me when clubs such as ours - under Ashley, same applies to Chelsea by picking another of Leeds' prospects no that long ago for 200k - miss the boat when spotting talent prior to the 15yr mark, only to then try & pennypinch by committing daylight robbery in attempting sign them up a couple of years later for a solitary million pounds or less. Same has applied to Arsenal and their respective purchases of Pennant & Walcott, yet there is a bit of a myth that they're building a proverbial footballing empire - where the basis of which has been their youth ranks - for peanuts and that we/Ashley have been duly correct by following the so-called Arsenal route.

His inability to react to a games momentum - by make the relating substitutions - has been worse than Souness and *SBR. *SBR's final two seasons in charge, where he burned out what was his consistent 1st choice 11.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2008/nov/13/1 This one struck a chord, particularly with the club's/Ashley's line of thinking that you can try and attain the pick of the up & coming talent pool for next to nothing ie. Leeds deriding our 1m offer. Bates was well within his right to laugh us off. To pick up such players - and i'll rewind the clock to our purchase of a similarly hyped Jenas, a dynamic & young central midfielder.... whom we payed 5m for - the club has to speculate on their ability/attributes and their scope for development, whilst paying the going rate. No surprise to hear the player mentioned being linked with some big clubs come January, for 5m. The days of picking up the likes of Anelka or their prized assets at around the 18yr old mark, from the relevant youth set-ups for minimal fees for million pounds, a few hundred K's or less are virtually over. Hence Ashley's, and formerly Mort's, viewpoint that we could operate on a Arsenal-based model - which accomplished much, & formed the framework of their success over the course of the ensuing decade & beyond - today's transfer market is an ill-conceived myth. It's just an excuse for penny-pinching on Ashley's part. Arsenal's best work in the transfer market occured about a decade ago, when Wenger virtually got the jump on his British rivals by raiding the French youth set-up at a minimal outlay - Anelka and Viera are the notable examples. Fast forward the clock a decade on, and Arsenal are forking out 10m for Nasri.... the going rate. According to Keegan we looked at the same player. What drew the red flag? The price tag, in comparison to what were prepared to and eventually payed for another French-based U'21 repesentative player in Bassong? The transfer market's bubble has burst, re- the youth ranks, and this has been so for a few years now, and Ashley never quite caught up with this. Purchases like Bassong - ie. a bargain, with some ability - are a rare thing nowadays. Unfortunately the club's grocery store transfer policy - scouring the lower leagues for bargains - is a departure from the current day transfer market reality where U'21 internationals are concerned/the prices which are duly placed upon their heads, and it may have cost us in picking up a couple of very promising prospects. Unless you attain these kids when they're around the 15yr old mark or earlier, the Arsenal model - in terms of measuring the quality of it's youth ranks (the 18yr old bracket) against it's outlay - is dated. While Ashley remains at the helm our chances of picking up the likes of Delph, or the pick of the U'21/19 crop, are slim. Cheaper prospects like Kadar - ie. 900k - and signing them broadscale as the youth buying policy is just about the club's current direction. It's a riskier & scattershot - abeit cheaper & penny-pinching - youth buying policy.

Provided there is truth in what the middlemen - those who have represented the Arab-based consortiums, the ones who have ended their pursuit - have said in relation to Ashley's conduct i can't see the club falling into Arab hands.

Right up Mr Ashley's alleyway. This would be the crowning achievement in an already impressive resume as such, and would compliment the rubbish spouted when he has spilled his guts to the press ie. 'i've always hated Spurs' - ie. as a counterpoint to his London-based roots - and his 'it's time for me don the suit/have some influence in running the club' remarks. These are just two press related examples, along with his forays among the supporters on matchday and accompanying 'King Kev' replica shirt. Some of the shit he's come out, when needed, have been selective, opportunistic and very well timed.