mrmojorisin75

post #69 numnuts! just kidding , good read that

who remembers that really bad period he had where he went to ratshit? if my failing memory serves i think it wasn't long after they won the first fergie league and he got his first bad injury which took him a LONG time to recover from he lost a lot of form and confidence for a long time iirc anyone? oh, he's a great by the way, just wondering if i imagined this

The irrational part of my brain actually wants a European Super League. Get the Sky four and their good for nothing fans to fuck off to their own league so we don't have to deal with them and I don't have to stress over eight unwinnable games every year. The rational part then comes in to remind me that with a European Super League, the Premiership would quickly become the new Championship and NUFC would be royally fucked. Oh well. hm, would it be so bad? surgically remove "the big four", their money and wanker players & fans from the league...there would be a consequent drop in income for the domestic leagues but that would force clubs to be run better and develop their own players more often, forge better links with fans & communities...plus the league would be competitive and probably enjoyable again for anyone not supporting the teams that fucked off only caveat i'd add is that if they choose to go they can't come back, ever, especially once all their wanker fans and the world get sick of it get on with it (only half serious mind)

This final paragraph kind of hints at the alternative to Ashley's strategy, which is a speculate-to-accumulate policy of forking out for established players in the hope that you can then recoup the outlay by success on the field. Aside from the fact that we have Leeds as an example of what can happen with a run of bad results, is this a strategy that can work in the present climate ? With the gap between the top four and the rest being so large, and the huge cost, in fees and wages, of attracting the best players to a non-Champions League team, you could easily end up spending £50 million and end up with a team that's in the relegation zone. Even a few years ago, it was a risky strategy, but now it seems completely unrealistic. I get bored of Leeds being trotted out as a cautionary tale to everyone in the league. One example of a club that speculated and failed....but let's not forget they are still living to tell the tale. "Doing a Leeds" isn't the end of a club. It's highly likely they'll be in the same division as us next year ffs, even with all our frugality. What we did in the 90's shows that speculation works. The same as Villa are doing now. Look at the bottom five.... Newcastle Portsmouth Blackburn Middlesbrough West Brom What have they got in common? None of them have a net spend of more than £6m over the past two years. Look at the next nine up... West Ham Man City Wigan Fulham Bolton Tottenham Sunderland Hull Stoke Only Bolton and Wigan have managed to get in this position with a net spend less than £10m in 2 years. In football, the speculators DO accumulate. Current league position is dependent on spend over the previous 2 years? Even if the league table continues to reflect those positions at the end of the season, the myriad of interconnecting factors that determine league position are far more complex than just something as simplistic as that. We should have spent more money in January, you dont need a statistical fallacy to persaude anyone of that. Yeah, I've not done a thesis on it, found the Spearman's rank correlation coefficient or owt. Interesting trend though, no? And I did 2 years, because that's how long Wor Mike has been here. In that it tells us we needed to spend more money in January? We didnt really need it to know that. bobyule did. He said we could easily do a Leeds if we spent more. I was just pointing out Leeds are the exception. Not the rule. I'm sure there's another club that spent a load of money on players, had a brief flirtation with the Champions League some time ago, and is now struggling as a result of overstretching themselves in the attempt to "speculate to accumulate". What are they called again? It's on the tip of my tongue. Begins with an "N"... Not that brief. We were in Europe 8 years out of ten before Big Mike arrived. They managed a couple of years. seriously?

But we were told the money was there to spend in January. We had bids totalling £40m+ knocked back according to Llambias. And if there's an expensive player the manager doesn't think is good enough....why can't he be loaned out? Even on a percentage of his wage we'd save money. It's a step not taken with an underperforming first teamer since Keegan loaned out Rozenhal and Ameobi. look i'm not tackling their fuckin lies, no point as for loaning you can't make clubs take players, who'd take duff or smith on even a fraction of their wages? jesus...at least rozenthal was considered a decent defender and ameobi had to drop a division and was shite...wonder why no-ones been back for him since? It was more rhetorical than a dig mate. Ameobi is the best we have avaiable at the moment so I wouldn't want to lose him now didn't it as dig actually dude, just read back that way...fuckin lyin bastards though eh?

But we were told the money was there to spend in January. We had bids totalling £40m+ knocked back according to Llambias. And if there's an expensive player the manager doesn't think is good enough....why can't he be loaned out? Even on a percentage of his wage we'd save money. It's a step not taken with an underperforming first teamer since Keegan loaned out Rozenhal and Ameobi. look i'm not tackling their fuckin lies, no point as for loaning you can't make clubs take players, who'd take duff or smith on even a fraction of their wages? jesus...at least rozenthal was considered a decent defender and ameobi had to drop a division and was shite...wonder why no-ones been back for him since?

it is a top post but states facts without tackling the issue at hand, the OP pointed to 2 stories - one about valencia being fucked 'cause of debt and the other how hard sponsorship is to find for clubs, as gekkotime points out himself we're in a world recession ffs, so i'll again ask the question; where is the money supposed to come from? who is gonna loan it to us even if we wanted to if we look back in 3-4 years and a number of clubs in debt haven't hit shit street i'll be amazed...i just don't see how it CAN'T happen

i agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment in the last 2 posts from HF & NG, however i have to say they are rather simplistic and both would involve either ashley finding more of his own money or increasing the club debt given the amount of turnover that is currently being eaten by wages it's alright saying find 10m to guarantee 20m tv money but the 10m spent on players probably doubles with wages over the life of a contract and is basically what has led us to here...the 30-40m tv money we're already getting can't pay the fucking shithouses we've got so until they're gone i see no hope unless ashley pays, which he won't anyway the point from HF about kinnear i could not agree more with, what a fucking disgrace...still it should truly blow away the myth ashley is only in it to make money

agreed on the analogy mind question for you HF - what would you have MA do? honestly, taking a balanced view of things as you seem able to do Sorry to butt in but Not allow our most consistent proformers to leave and only get the moneny back in installments while at the sametime doing our own rule of thumb of only buying players out right. This rule AT the moment is going to f***ing f*** us. you mean performer, singular; shay given...oh sorry yeah there was milner who was consistently average and worthless on the pitch Still pulled in 12 mil for milner tho 4 or 5 mill for n'zogbia and 5 mil for Given from the richest club owners in the world. not disputed

agreed on the analogy mind question for you HF - what would you have MA do? honestly, taking a balanced view of things as you seem able to do Sorry to butt in but Not allow our most consistent proformers to leave and only get the moneny back in installments while at the sametime doing our own rule of thumb of only buying players out right. This rule AT the moment is going to fucking fuck us. you mean performer, singular; shay given...oh sorry yeah there was milner who was consistently average and worthless on the pitch

agreed on the analogy mind question for you HF - what would you have MA do? honestly, taking a balanced view of things as you seem able to do

- to the first one short term no, long term perhaps as your question omits many other factors - to the second one how the fuck should we know? they look likely to be minimal though from what i can see so, for you; do you think continuing to increase the clubs debt to dangerous levels by signing more past it overpaid wasters would have seen the club climb the league? any fucking idiot can weight a question in their favour man

my two penneth after chelping once before about this, it needs to be split into with the ball & without the ball: 1. with the ball, imo, it's largely an instinct thing...the natural ability to see a pass no-one else can, or the natural ability to play a pass others can't see or make 2. without the ball falls into "football brain" or "intelligence" more for me as a lot of players both defensively & offensively make things happen (or stop them happening) due to an awareness of the game around them and a concentration level, what you'd call intelligent running when attacking for example or great cover from a DM who can see where the play is going to go and positions himself to break it up there are plenty of players with one of these but not the other, or a combination of both but one to a much lesser degree - the truly great players have both in abundance or probably #1 so much they're untouchable this is why i personally rate messi higher than ronaldo, one is an artist the other a blunt instrument....doesn't make either bad players before anyone starts

I spent the entire time in Grahamstown, which is in the Eastern Cape near Port Elizabeth. Pretty safe place, mostly petty crime apart from the occasional rape. I felt really safe for the week I spent in Cape Town, Durban is a pretty dodgy place though, I actually went to the rugby stadium which is right next to the new football stadium and that area seemed pretty safe, but there are parts of Durban that I wouldn't have felt safe walking around in at night alone. I didn't actually goto Joburg but I knew some people who did and some people who lived there, and they seemed to get through it ok. Apparently South Africa are hiring literally tens of thousands of new police to cover the tournament, most of whom I imagine will be stationed in the north. They're also trying to move people out of slums that are near inner cities (possible human rights violations here, similar to China for the Olympics), but I just get the feeling that South Africa really want to make a good impression now that they're on the world stage. That may mean negative things for poor locals, but I'm convinced that I can make a 3 week trip there, have a really good time, and be safe while doing it. Plus it will be cheap compared to Germany and the people speak English. And yes, they are selling 4 categories of tickets, only 3 of which can be bought by foreigners. The 4th category is really cheap and only for locals. My guess is that they're doing this because all of the rich white people with money are obsessed with rugby and aren't going to be too jazzed up for the football. [not laughing at rape before anyone starts, more the matter of fact way it's reported above...]

so the only way we will qualify regularly for europe under Mike Ashley is if half the teams in the country go bust ? Don't know whether to laugh or cry. I think it is far more likely that in 10 years time or longer we will look back on the league positions and european qualifications since 1992 with great fondness. Does anybody in fact know what we will owe Mike Ashley if or when he sells the club ? what THE FUCK are you talking about?

Well comes down to the fact that people want to believe we have a more positive future than the shit we are in at the moment and the only way for us to believe that, is to discuss/argue the owner's previous actions and current plans and speculate on transfer budgets and such. yeah, never got that...this and many other discussions reflect the reality of the clubs situation, what the fuck else should we talk about, our prospects for next seasons champions league? i fully support the non-derailing of threads but as this isn't being take it elsewhere i say

fyp

bullshit "fact". he has sacked 1 manager he didnt appoint and who the vast majority of fans wanted out. I take your comment on board. Would you agree that. Ashley had 3 managers at the club in the space of one year. Ashley has made significant compensation payments to two of them (or will have soon enough) one of whom was extraordinarily popular and doing very well. manager #1 has been explained above. manager #2 quit and isnt guaranteed any payout (though it is likely he'll get something) and manager #3 took over because manager #2 quit and is still currently employed as our manager. to compare this to shepherd's hirings and sackings is insane. I don't think Shepherd made a hash of a single managerial departure as much as Ashley screwed up in letting Keegan qo. Nor do I think he screwed up any appointment as badly as Ashley screwed up when he gave the job to Kinnear. Can you give me an example? fuck me Howay then i'll be round once i've had my ring bleached then, had on

bullshit "fact". he has sacked 1 manager he didnt appoint and who the vast majority of fans wanted out. I take your comment on board. Would you agree that. Ashley had 3 managers at the club in the space of one year. Ashley has made significant compensation payments to two of them (or will have soon enough) one of whom was extraordinarily popular and doing very well. manager #1 has been explained above. manager #2 quit and isnt guaranteed any payout (though it is likely he'll get something) and manager #3 took over because manager #2 quit and is still currently employed as our manager. to compare this to shepherd's hirings and sackings is insane. I don't think Shepherd made a hash of a single managerial departure as much as Ashley screwed up in letting Keegan qo. Nor do I think he screwed up any appointment as badly as Ashley screwed up when he gave the job to Kinnear. Can you give me an example? fuck me

it would have already happened if ashley could have found someone fucking stupid enough to pay whatever mentally preposterous fee he'd want for it

sho 'nuff

That sentence in bold is probably one of the biggest piles of dogshit I have ever read on this forum This is the problem with anti-Ashley posters and the likes of the NUSC. Banging on about what's been done wrong without even attempting to acknowledge the point of the original post, which is about clubs going facing real financial difficulties if they spend beyond their means without any proportionate success. Does this sound like any club in particular? This is the problem about those who have bought into Ashley's propaganda and have posted on this thread without correctly interpreting what others have said - there was absolutely NOTHING in my posting which mentioned Ashley's spend - if you look again , you will see that I said he has messed up Jumbo style ; this has nothing to do with the spend but EVERYTHING to do with his decision-making...and I stand by that 100 % , as would anyone unless they think that creating a situation where KK walks out, employing a third-rater like Kinnear after making an abortive effort to sell the club(and then offering him a 2 year contract) etc etc...is good management. not arguing with any of that like, but i love the chelp that Happy Face has railed off into about spending on managers under ashley after a massive amount of the debt ashley paid off was built up by the previous owners in appointing shit managers on big contracts, allowing them to spend a fortune on shit players then sacking them and paying them off you couldn't make it up Ashley hasn't paid it off. He's changed the lender....to himself...so we save on the interest. Ashley has sacked managers at a rate 3 times more frequent than Shepherd did. Why do you support this course of action while deriding it from the previous chairman? ah, semantics, last desperate act - i'm going to assume that before ashley bought the club the money was owed by NUFC to someone who was not Mike Ashley, therefore he paid that debt did he not? as we're being pedantic about it you're referencing -2 years to +10 years which i hope you realise is fucking ridiculous & i support neither course of action There's no semantics involved. When I transfer the balance on my credit cards to a 0% card, have I "Paid off my debt"? No doubt it's a sensible course of action that saves me money. It doesn't mean I'm now the shining example of a debt free citizen. The bloke's only been here 2 years. It's difficult to judge him on anything else. tell you what i'll rephrase my previous post, just for you then: "not arguing with any of that like, but i love the chelp that Happy Face has railed off into about spending on managers under ashley after a massive amount of the debt ashley transferred to himself without charging the club interest was built up by the previous owners in appointing shit managers on big contracts, allowing them to spend a fortune on shit players then sacking them and paying them off" better? if you can't see there's a contradiction between saying "Ashley has sacked managers at a rate 3 times more frequent than Shepherd did" and "The bloke's only been here 2 years. It's difficult to judge him on anything else." then you're truly lost and see what Ian W says next post

The shirt is real, but not our new shirt. aw, fuck

That sentence in bold is probably one of the biggest piles of dogshit I have ever read on this forum This is the problem with anti-Ashley posters and the likes of the NUSC. Banging on about what's been done wrong without even attempting to acknowledge the point of the original post, which is about clubs going facing real financial difficulties if they spend beyond their means without any proportionate success. Does this sound like any club in particular? This is the problem about those who have bought into Ashley's propaganda and have posted on this thread without correctly interpreting what others have said - there was absolutely NOTHING in my posting which mentioned Ashley's spend - if you look again , you will see that I said he has messed up Jumbo style ; this has nothing to do with the spend but EVERYTHING to do with his decision-making...and I stand by that 100 % , as would anyone unless they think that creating a situation where KK walks out, employing a third-rater like Kinnear after making an abortive effort to sell the club(and then offering him a 2 year contract) etc etc...is good management. not arguing with any of that like, but i love the chelp that Happy Face has railed off into about spending on managers under ashley after a massive amount of the debt ashley paid off was built up by the previous owners in appointing shit managers on big contracts, allowing them to spend a fortune on shit players then sacking them and paying them off you couldn't make it up Ashley hasn't paid it off. He's changed the lender....to himself...so we save on the interest. Ashley has sacked managers at a rate 3 times more frequent than Shepherd did. Why do you support this course of action while deriding it from the previous chairman? ah, semantics, last desperate act - i'm going to assume that before ashley bought the club the money was owed by NUFC to someone who was not Mike Ashley, therefore he paid that debt did he not? as we're being pedantic about it you're referencing -2 years to +10 years which i hope you realise is fucking ridiculous & i support neither course of action