AyeDubbleYoo

Most people who go on strike are under contract, the two things aren't contradictory.

Would never celebrate or be happy about an injury to anyone TBH, especially not a serious one.

There isn't a smiley that sums up the unbelievable shiteness of this post.

One of the worst tweets ever, and that's saying something.

So you agree?

I agree. I'm happy for Ashley to keep his 20m a season after the abuse he got, as long as he doesn't take any money out of the club for himself - much less hundreds of millions like the Halls and Shepherds did. However, I'm not happy at us having to pay for his expensive mistakes. You have to live in the real world though. Obviously when the owner of a club makes a mistake the club suffers... just like a manager or a player.

Neither is Barton.

Alex Ferguson seems an unlikely facebook user to me.

Aye, let's not pay silly money!

Nothing that a top class striker wouldn't fix! As long as he costs £30m+!

Do we think Cesc has peaked early, or is he just going through an average patch in a stellar career?

8367

Seriously doubt that will be allowed, although you're right about the risk of relegation. FWIW I think they might well go down anyway.

Same, it's obviously a risk, but I think it was the right decision to let Nolan go and try to evolve our football.

I trust him to fight for his own interests. Just like KK. Unlike KK, or Bobby, or Chris Hughton, or even Gullit (who didn't seek any compensation money), I don't trust him to fight for ours - unless they happen to be the same as his. Just like Dalglish and Souness and Kinnear and Allardyce. I honestly don't understand why you put him in that second group rather than the first though. Just because he was appointed by Ashley, or is "mates" with Llambias?

I'm not trying to defend Shepherd, I hated him. Our income should be much higher than Villa and Everton because of the size of the stadium and much higher prices than sunderland. Tron's point about Sports Direct is a good one. The club must be losing millions in revenue due to most of the advertising space within SJP being coated in Sports Direct blurb. i'd guess that we will have a bigger income income than villa and everton for the season gone. however it has to be viewed in the context of years of losses. pointless having a bigger turnover than club X if you are going to live beyond it constantly. as in the past i've said i have no problem with the club having debt, the problem has always been the sustainability of that debt and i'm not at all sure we were headed a good way. interesting that people blame him for the large wages given to smith,geremi etc when thats exactly what people want, an owner who'll just say yes to the manager all the time regardless. which way do people want it ? I dont think its quite like that. Its glaringly obvious we have not replaced Carroll adequately. The rational of the sale was that the proceeds were to be used to revamp the squad and make us a better team overall. In fact, as far as I can make out, the net spend is NIL; the saved wages plus Nolan money offsets the new signings. So, we have been misled once again with double speak. I think Carroll was sold because the offer was too good to turn down. I don't think it had anything to do with the money being used to revamp the squad. Pardew was unwise to try to justify the sale after the fact on that basis, but I don't think he ever sait that was the 'reason' for the sale.

Does seem strange that Ashley isn't pushing harder for better sponsorship deals. Maybe now we're back in the Premier League he will do.

Because a large number of them are financed by generous benefactors who are happy to throw money at their clubs? Like Stoke and Wolves? Aye, righto. Ok - I'll try again - other clubs weren't trying to correct years of negligent ownership that had created an 100% unsustainable business. Any other examples you'd like me to bat back? How long are you going to bang this drum? Will you still be defending him in 2015 on the basis of "what Shepherd did"? At what point does it become his responsibility seeing as there isn't a contract at the club that wasn't signed under Ashley? But Wullie, the accounts state regular losses for every year in recent memory, that's a fact. Unless we're happy to let that debt increase (which clearly some clubs are for the reasons we've discussed) something had to change. The Shepherd era created an underlying business that wasn't sustainable, that seems to be a fact as well. If you're arguing that Ashley should be letting the debt increase and continuing to subsidise it himself, then that's a valid argument. Maybe you think he has a moral obligation to do so. If not, then something about our ratio of income:outgoings had to be tweaked. Where are the losses coming from though Ian? What major outgoings does a football club have other than wages, given that the stadium mortgage was automatically paid off when Ashley took over because he hadn't done his homework (and therefore the incoming funds from SJP should be vastly in excess of what they were under Shepherd)? If the club is making a loss because the wages are too high, then that is Ashley's fault. We also took a huge hit because of relegation - Ashley's fault. Turnover is lower than it was under Shepherd - Ashley's fault. It's fuck all to do with Shepherd and everything to do with being absolutely shit at running a football club to an acceptable standard, both financially and on the field. There's definitely a lot of truth to that, obviously if Ashley had made loads of brilliant decisions then we would have just gone on to more success and had a higher turnover than we do. As it was he was naive and then made some catastrophic mistakes in the initial period. Saying that, since relegation he's done alright-ish (if Hughton's sacking was a mistake, we haven't suffered). Still think your argument about the wages is a bit of a logical backflip though, are you saying you would have supported Ashley in reducing the wage bill even faster than he has? As for the general income of the club, it is what it is. We haven't been in Europe for some time and have just suffered a relegation, I know our stadium is big but our tickets aren't the most expensive. Anyway, don't have accounts to hand for detailed chat about that.

It might seem like it, but I've smashed my office to bits. Nah, it's fine, my fault for getting involved in the same old arguments again. Must try harder.

The US Department of Homeland Security? The bastards! (If the CIA are reading this, I'm kidding)

Spot on, people just seem to expect that football managers have some sort of obligation to spell out the exact truth in public. Most of them are spinning a story 80% of time, if not more. Doubt it. Anyhow, we'll have to agree to disagree. Clearly coming from very different positions on this but good to have the debate. Aye, same, interesting point. If it's consolation, I wouldn't be surprised if you turned out to be right!

Because a large number of them are financed by generous benefactors who are happy to throw money at their clubs? Like Stoke and Wolves? Aye, righto. Ok - I'll try again - other clubs weren't trying to correct years of negligent ownership that had created an 100% unsustainable business. Any other examples you'd like me to bat back? How long are you going to bang this drum? Will you still be defending him in 2015 on the basis of "what Shepherd did"? At what point does it become his responsibility seeing as there isn't a contract at the club that wasn't signed under Ashley? But Wullie, the accounts state regular losses for every year in recent memory, that's a fact. Unless we're happy to let that debt increase (which clearly some clubs are for the reasons we've discussed) something had to change. The Shepherd era created an underlying business that wasn't sustainable, that seems to be a fact as well. If you're arguing that Ashley should be letting the debt increase and continuing to subsidise it himself, then that's a valid argument. Maybe you think he has a moral obligation to do so. If not, then something about our ratio of income:outgoings had to be tweaked.

who is suggesting this? surely you just have a wage bill and a % of profits generated reinvested into team affairs shall we call it? any money from sales can be split however you like into dividends (so called)/transfer fees/wages this is why i said i have no problem with the idea in principle, it's not bad, but the way MA is running with it it's a fucking pisstake ian...it's literally taking the piss out of 10's of 1,000's of people sorry but there's no clearer way to say it Everyone is implying it all the time. Almost every post contains something like "this much of the Carroll money has gone on the training ground" or "so many million out of the Carroll money has gone on Tiote's new contract". What I'm saying is exactly what you admit, that it isn't a separate stash of money and shouldn't be treated as different to any of our other income. Some people seem to be suggesting that it's criminal not to use the bulk of the money on transfer fees in this window. If you agree with me then no worries. The why did Billy Bullshit feel the need to reassure the fans it would all be spaffed on improving the team? Nay team, Squad. Nay Squad, Club. Nay transfers, Bore Holes and Training Bibs. Yeah, I totally agree that what he said about investing it all in the team was wrong. I never believed it at the time. But criticising him for saying something is different to blaming him for not being right. My point is that it's inherent in him. His lying was the trotting out of a last minute, botched discussion/party line agreed between him and Llambias, for sure. Why not just say it like it is and be done with it? He'd be far better recieved. There's no question, it was a massive fee and represents a huge result for the Owner but from a fans perspective, to lose a geordie number nine, the future of the club for ten years and you get fuck all back it makes you question his agenda as the manager - why would he want to be at a club that does that? Also, it was obvious that AC was being touted around the premiership when we sold him so it wasn't an unexpected bid. That's why I think the same will happen to Tiote. I'd put my on it if a bookie would take a bet. Fair play, I'm not Pardew's personal cheerleader, I just think he's doing a decent job in difficult circumstances. I'll agree to disagree about the other stuff.

Of course, it has to be a balance. But we've already shown that we can compete, the next step is showing that we can thrive. Obviously that's harder/more expensive!

Spot on, people just seem to expect that football managers have some sort of obligation to spell out the exact truth in public. Most of them are spinning a story 80% of time, if not more.