mrmojorisin75

so what you're saying then is that you're an ashley apologist and want to give him a rim job?

There's so much wrong with that post it's hard to know where to start but the bolded bit...I disagree that JK is a worse manager than Allardyce, and if you are saying that it was wrong to pay out so much money to get rid of the fat faker, then obviously that negates your point about paying Keegan off as he would never have been here, we'd still have Allardyce, heading to Hull with a ten man defence and hoofing the ball 50 yards for Owen to scrap for. The point relates more to the one in the article from the OP that part of valncia's problem is the rate at which they go through managers. Ashley has gone through 3 managers in one season.....but is sticking with the worst one. If you think Allardyce is a worse manager than Kinnear then it serves to further illustrate how clueless you are. At least I'm not so clueless to totally distort the point of the OP in order to get my digs in and pretend it was praising Ashley for "running things well". "Let's all give thanks to uncle Mike...." "the titles a piss take obviously" keep going though bonny lad, doing well.... OK "things could be much, much worse imo" "things could have been very different had nobody bought the club from FS/Halls" "Mike Ashley buying this club will turn out to be a blessing in disguise" i posted the two in bold & see nothing controversial in either statement

"Someone posted this in the materialism thread" what does this mean? that the shirt is a load of shite someone made up? don't get it

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

There's so much wrong with that post it's hard to know where to start but the bolded bit...I disagree that JK is a worse manager than Allardyce, and if you are saying that it was wrong to pay out so much money to get rid of the fat faker, then obviously that negates your point about paying Keegan off as he would never have been here, we'd still have Allardyce, heading to Hull with a ten man defence and hoofing the ball 50 yards for Owen to scrap for. The point relates more to the one in the article from the OP that part of valncia's problem is the rate at which they go through managers. Ashley has gone through 3 managers in one season.....but is sticking with the worst one. If you think Allardyce is a worse manager than Kinnear then it serves to further illustrate how clueless you are. At least I'm not so clueless to totally distort the point of the OP in order to get my digs in and pretend it was praising Ashley for "running things well". "Let's all give thanks to uncle Mike...." "the titles a piss take obviously" keep going though bonny lad, doing well....

I mentioned a lot more than the manager pay-offs too. If anyone latched onto managers it was you when you emboldened it from my cromulent post. actually in your post you make about a 50% reference to managers in various guises, 25% reference to shite like "He's got us one point from being relegated and losing millions of TV money." and 25% of sense such as "The wages are too high with people at the club being paid excessively while underperforming badly."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2009/mar/10/the-question-champions-league-premier back to topic, good article this...

There's so much wrong with that post it's hard to know where to start but the bolded bit...I disagree that JK is a worse manager than Allardyce, and if you are saying that it was wrong to pay out so much money to get rid of the fat faker, then obviously that negates your point about paying Keegan off as he would never have been here, we'd still have Allardyce, heading to Hull with a ten man defence and hoofing the ball 50 yards for Owen to scrap for. The point relates more to the one in the article from the OP that part of valncia's problem is the rate at which they go through managers. Ashley has gone through 3 managers in one season.....but is sticking with the worst one. If you think Allardyce is a worse manager than Kinnear then it serves to further illustrate how clueless you are. there was a lot more to do with valencia's problems than the managers part you've latched onto...like building a ground they can't complete 'cause they expected to make a fortune on land for the mestalla or paying 10m euro to a guy for 2 weeks work or something or signing 3 players at 17m each only one of whom is half decent iirc as i said, carry on though...more about ashley & managers please

comments on 2 points in bold: 1. clubs tend not to want to buy shit players and take their massive wages, funny that wonder why? 2. who said he was running things well? you're exposing yourself as 'boycoutter' spouting shit like that Ignore the rest though mate. In response to your first point, I agree that nobody wants to buy overpaid shite......except us when we give the likes of Ameobi a new contract. It's not just players though. If he's cutting costs so sensibly, then how can we afford the most overpaid scout in the league? And on your second, I thought the OP was suggesting we'd be thanking Ashley in the long run. Was it not? i ignored what i wanted, same way you did you when you read the OP...did you open the links to the 2 stories by the way? read what Tron wrote later on, sums it up you carry on though, don't let the thread stop you

i never brought it up either but a thread is like a river and i follow it to the sea. he he, i was just pissing about anyways, forgot the

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? ah, finally, someone comes along who doesn't need a drawing in crayon to work things out

comments on 2 points in bold: 1. clubs tend not to want to buy shit players and take their massive wages, funny that wonder why? 2. who said he was running things well? you're exposing yourself as 'boycoutter' spouting shit like that

that kind of crossed my mind as a possibility, half the reason i posted it gonna depend on a shitload of luck for the next couple of seasons though

:yikes: :yikes: has anyone seen the wrestler? past it old bloke, heart operation, mental hair, can't let go of the dream, goes back to work when he shouldn't.... hm, maybe hasn't seen it yet

why? Because we'd find out who was getting paid what. i mean why do the lib dems want that? Because of the whole Sir Fred Goodwin incident. Goodwin IS culpable - but not as much a Gordon Brown who instructed the FSA to have a 'Light touch' on Regulating the Banks...Adair Turner, the Chairman of the FSA told the Commons Select Committee that this was the case. Goodwin has, sadly, every right to keep his Pension although seeing as Brown has wrecked all but those in the Public Sector, maybe Goodwin should get his reduced too...! That all started in the 80s with the Tories under Thatcher, Brown and Blair just carried on with it. You can't pick out either party to blame for this, as it would have been exactly the same under either of them. That's not to say it's good what they did, but it's not a party political thing it's just a general problem with politicians in general being enslaved by the City. Total rubbish - GORDON BROWN re-set the rules for the FSA in 1997 and that is ALL that counts. The Tories have been out of power for 12 years, and it is a typical, head-in-the-sand view of Socialists to try to blame them for the current problems.. I agree that politicians are in hock to the City - but that is purely because ALL the major parties have let Industry and manufacturing go and built a Service Economy - something I believe was put together as part of the UK joining the then Common Market. ALL politicians are corrupt. Read and learn: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_(financial_markets) I was 'reading and learning' when you were but a dream in your father's eye(or should that be something else...?). The LAST place I need to look to know about the so-called Big Bang is Wikipedia ; as for the rights and wrongs of it, I didn't hear many complaints when people were making instant money on Gas shares... I have NO brief for the Tories, but Thatcher's Govt were left with little choice because the Labour Govt of Callaghan had left the UK in such a state(have you ever heard of the IMF ? They were called in in 1976 because the Govt had got the country bankrupt ; it might be advisable to do some research on the IMF, because if Brown's so-called 'Quantative Easing'(i.e.Printing Money) goes wrong, the IMF will be renewing its relations with the UK.... Also, the UK was run by Commie Union bosses who had the Labour Party by the b---s and would do anything rather than think of their members or the countries' welfare.... Fast forward to 1997 and Blair inheriting an economy in surplus ; enter Gordon Brown who immediately removes Tax Credits from Private Pensions(i.e. those being paid for by the MEMBERS THEMSELVES, and NOT out of taxes as per Brown's Client State of Public employees, which he then proceeded to expand with plenty of stupid non-jobs(Outreach Co-ordinators, anyone !??)so he could buy votes... Result ? UK Private Pensions lose 5Bn pounds a year, people now facing poverty in old age etc etc.. This action also affected the UK Stockmarket because people stopped investing in their pensions...result? Money goes into housing because people try to use the gain in house prices to fund retirement...and so on, and so on... Then we come to removal of 10p Tax band, Unlimited Immigration etc etc.... Want me to go on ? there were plenty of people complaining about the gas sell off saying that it was massivly underpriced in order to make the sale look a success (as they did with BT aswell). as for the IMF hadn't most of that been paid back by 1979 ? if the union bosses had the labour government by the balls you'd have thought there'd be no need for strikes. thatcher went too far with the unions to the point of giving business too much room to ride over it's workforce and her brand of moneterism failed. And who were those complaining about the sale price of Gas shares ? Basically Labour MPs/Union bosses because the Public seemed quite happy to buy them and make money...just as they were quite happy to see their house prices rocketing up, even though the reason was dodgy lending and stupidly-low Interest rates.. All very well to complain when things go wrong.... ...So the money owed to the IMF was repaid by 1979...are you sure..!!?? In any case, do you think that its right that a Govt of a country like Britain should EVER have to go to the IMF ?? And, to answer your point about the Unions, the very REASON that the Labour Govt went to the IMF was BECAUSE the Unions had them by the balls - the IMF made it a CONDITION of the loans that the UK HAD to enforce measures to control Public spending which Unions would never have accepted from the Govt itself. Thatcher's monetarism did NOT fail, because as you should know, the Bliar Govt inherited a SURPLUS.. If the monetary policy had failed, it would have been a deficit, just as Brown has created now. Thatcher's biggest mistake was allowing Europhiles like Hesletine and Clarke(and Major)talk her into joining the ERM, and also, for not keeping a tighter control on the destination of British companies as the Germans do with theirs...not that NuLab have been any better in that respect. I notice that you didn't address any of the points in my last paragraph.....! lots of financial commentators of the time said the price was "to sell", and since they've all said the privatisations were under priced. i said "most" of the IMF money had been paid back,not all. if previous governments (especially heaths) had played the unions differently the unions wouldn't have had the power they did (and yes the unions did need taking down a peg or two). i said moneterism failed, a policy that was abandoned around the time of lamont and his 15% interest rates. thatchers biggest mistake was to try and implement too harshly too quickly forgetting that those numbers were people with lives. i didn't address any of the points in your last paragraph as i'm not a labour supporter so won't defend them on those things. no doubt a labour supporter could do a similar critique for the tories years in power and their current policies (if you can find them) OK, you made some fair observations, but - why do you think Lamont HAD to introduce the 15% Rates ? It wasn't his idea, it was Major's - Lamont was told to defend Sterling at ANY price to try to stop it falling out of the ERM, which Major, wrongly, had taken the UK into when he was Chancellor. Speculators were simply making a fortune by exploiting this ludicrous policy(esp Soros), and eventually, Major had to admit defeat and withdraw Britain from the ERM...Lamont IMMEDIATELY reduced rates back to around 5% and said he was 'singing in the bath' after having done so... The lower rates then enabled the UK to go on a growth cycle that left the country with the surplus I mentioned earlier when Blair took over. this thread has descended into the worst thing i've seen since all those accountants were discussing player amortisation needs locking or punting out of the football section

the PL, and the clubs, would argue that doing that would have prevented them from being in the position they (when i say they i mean the top 4) are in now with regards europe...seems the europeans can do nothing to stop PL teams dominating for the forseeable that they can't see it will end badly amazes me EDIT: if they just looked at italy ffs...swimming in money late 80's early 90's, dominated and thought the gravy train would roll on forever, look them now

its simple. the pl;ayers have been paid, far too much, tenfold imo,.. so it was always going to end one day. very true

as i said at the start i wasn't sure where i was going with this, but it's more general than NUFC i suppose...the stories of clubs being hit by finances are getting more & more frequent, i don't expect that to stop as LiquidAK says things could have been very different had nobody bought the club from FS/Halls, very different indeed doesn't mean a lot to this season though, obviously...on the pitch we've been an utter travesty

If I were you, I'd edit that before cp40 reads it.

Or they'd just start supporting someone else. you ever met anyone who has 'supported' manyoo, liverpool or whoever from the north east and then changed their allegiance during their adult life? the above is an often cited cliche but personally i haven't met anyone to do that...some of my mates from home are Tottenham, Manyoo & Southampton fans as they latched onto something about the clubs when they were young for whatever reason, the strip or saw them in a final or something before they knew too much about the game none of them have ever shown any sign of wanting to change just wondered if anyone knows anyone who has...?

that toon shirt would be as cool as ice, reverting to the old adidas badge never gonna happen, too classy for MA...we need something that looks shite

afraid i disagree

indeed, but his all round game was lacking, was it not? he improved on that a lot at manyoo at the expense of his poaching instincts later in his time but that kind of thing comes with maturity and experience, oba will improve aspects of his game too as he grows, but he won't unless he plays with better players

agreed double agreed one thing i'd truly love to see is a fully fit martins with a fully fit, ball playing midfield who can dictate a game martins gets accused of (rightly to some degree) a lack of 'intelligence' on the pitch...for me a player with carrick's ability for example would recognise the danger someone like martins can cause and would force him to make certain runs into certain areas with the type of passes they play to him, i.e. force him to work the channels and play on the shoulder between FB/CB and look for more balls in behind defences barton can do this but he's not played enough of course martins isn't the greatest striker to every play game but with a better midfield his pace and strength would see him scoring a lot or making a lot imo, that's how dangerous he is...people are vastly underrating him now 'cause he's played with utter dogshit since turning up at NUFC and he's getting dragged down anyone think andy cole was an intelligent striker? me either, but he had successive managers and players who made him play to his strengths we'll miss martins when he's gone, oh goodness how we'll miss him when he's gone and marlon harewood or shefki kuqi or someone replaces him...

never thought of it like that actually, but i reckon that's probably about right