mrmojorisin75

i'm with the people who say shut this thread down and any others like it - negative psychology approach...! the more we analyse and talk the less actually happens, lets ALL assume nothing is going to happen and behave accordingly then maybe something will happen?

2. Sam Allardyce. He should sack him right from the beginning. Ashley has admitted that he thinks Allardyce wasn't appropriate to be the manager and he wanted to appoint another one, but then he thinks "Well, why not give it a try? If things doesn't go on well then I will sack him" WTF is this strategy? Give it a try? Sack whenever not impressive enough? Jesus christ. It's just like another temporary manager appointment. No stability at all. I don't blame him for not putting money into the transfer market (considering that's the consequence of FS and his interest-free loan) but he's failed as an owner, simply as that. still didn't appoint allardyce though did he? but yes, failed as an owner indeed

one bad appointment then (not counting kinnear 'cause although he's shite the fans shouldn't have forced ashleys hand and boxed him into the corner he ended up in meaning it was probably a choice of kinnear or the tea lady), catching freddy up fast...! as NE5 says, not easy to pick the right manager eh? i presume the great man (NE5) would allow ashley the same slack he allows FS in this regard?

i'm really gonna enjoy hating owen for the rest of my life after he leaves, probably not fair as no rational human being of his footballing ability would want to stay with us now but if EVER a footballer owed a club anything he is high up the list the little shit hope he cuts his fucking wrists on a gillette advert, or his timex watch explodes into his eye, or chokes on a drink of lucozade the rich, money grabbing little cunt

For us?<b> There's no comparison who was better for us though. No comparison at all.</b> And if you are referring to their spells in charge of us, then I really don't know what to say. I think you will find there is. It makes me laugh people still view Kevin Keegan as some kind of untouchable figure who only ever did anything for our football club. Particularly after his disastrous second spell and his disgusting lack of loyalty in walking out on those who actually love the club. Kevin Keegan isn't a Geordie he won't ever be and he doesn't actually love our Club despite what people may like to think. Bobby Robson isn't a geordie either if we're being pedantic. And if you don't think Keegan loves our club then there is seriously something wrong with you. There really isn't a comparison at all with what Keegan done and Robson. I'm not knocking SBR at all as he done a fantastic job for us, but what Keegan done was on another level. Whilst I've argued for KK having done more for the club that SBR, I actually think the KK loving the club line is a slight fallacy (but not untrue). SBR was treated disgracefully by the club, but despite dying of cancer he still makes as many home games as he can. That's love. Keegan is incredibly passionate, but when did he ever turn up at SJP in a non official role? fair point that mind...however wasn't he basically in a hate-hate relationship with the previous board? or have i just made that up? EDIT: and the current one!

For us?<b> There's no comparison who was better for us though. No comparison at all.</b> And if you are referring to their spells in charge of us, then I really don't know what to say. I think you will find there is. It makes me laugh people still view Kevin Keegan as some kind of untouchable figure who only ever did anything for our football club. Particularly after his disastrous second spell and his disgusting lack of loyalty in walking out on those who actually love the club. Kevin Keegan isn't a Geordie he won't ever be and he doesn't actually love our Club despite what people may like to think. Bobby Robson isn't a geordie either if we're being pedantic. And if you don't think Keegan loves our club then there is seriously something wrong with you. There really isn't a comparison at all with what Keegan done and Robson. I'm not knocking SBR at all as he done a fantastic job for us, but what Keegan done was on another level. keegan hit his ceiling with us first time, his motivation skills were perfect for the club and the game at the time but as we saw in the title run in he was undone by a better manager on many levels (SAF)...he never came close to the same level again nor will he imo what keegan achieved here should not be denigrated in any way but it is somewhat overstated by some people - he was afforded A LOT of money to do what he did, lets not forget that

You've probably missed the thread regarding the clubs latest accounts where Ernst & Young added the following: At 30th June 2008 the Group had net liabilities of £36.3m, which includes loans from Mr M J W Ashley totalling £100m. Net liabilities were £22.6m. Subsequent to the year and the ultimate controlling party, Mr M J W Ashley, has provided additional funding of £10m. This funding, together with newly agreed bank facilities, has been incorporated into the Directors' cash flow forecast for the Group. These forecasts indicate that the Group can continue to meet its debts as they fall due for a period of at least 12 months from the date of approval of these financial statements. The Directors have also received a commitment from its parent undertaking. St James Holdings Limited and from ultimate controlling party Mr M J W Ashley that they will continue to provide the Group with financial support so that it can meet its debts as they fall due for a period of at least 12 months from the date of approval of these financial statements or up until the date of any change in control. On this basis, the Directors have prepared the financial statements on a going concern basis. Basically, without the money Ashley has put in and has promised to carry on doing so, we would be out of business as you can't trade while insolvent. I expect that's true of all the privately owned clubs in the prem, so what? He should have known what he was in for when he bought the club. If he can't afford it, he should sell to someone who can. erm, all the other people who looked at the books before ashley ran a fuckin mile in terror...most fans were chuffed when he bought it as we thought things would be run more professionally, hasn't turned out that way though you could, if you wanted, thank your lucky fucking stars we weren't bought with finance at a time when banks are collapsing left right and centre eh? oh no lets not, he was nasty to kev or summik so nothing else counts does it?

yup, nailed

It's quite obvious what they (as in people who aren't you or NE5, that said your posts seem to mesh together anyway) are getting at, and it's completely fair and doesn't take much or anything away from their criticism of Ashley. Hindsight. Almost on a par with mandiarse.....but not quite. You show me one poster who said at the time we were playing in the san siro etc that we shouldn't have bought those players that took us there rather than run a solvent business ? You will also find the same posters, for the most part, frothing over at the fat b****** for not buying more players and "splashing the cash" whenever we lost a game or two. i'll show you plenty who said it when we bought luque etc. as i've already posted the position we were in then is vastly different to the position fred left us in......i'll spell it out for you. borrowing money when you have small debts and a sustaining business plan is ok, in some circumstances it is even preferable to raising cash in other ways. borrowing year on year whan you have very high debt to turnover and have no business plan excepet to hope you become succesful is mindless. why do you constantly cherry pick the highpoints and ignore the position we were left in ? I'm not talking about Luque, you are cherry picking a bad signing as being indicative of the clubs whole philisophy. In actual fact, most people said that Luque was a good player/should have a chance. Not too many people agreed with me when I said that he was s**** the first time I saw him. You have to accept that some players don;t work , or are poor buys, but you can't accept this in the same way as you also completely unrealistically can't accept that we don't appoint the right manager every time. In fact, in the last 4 years ie since Bobby Robson, only 5 clubs have had trophy winning managers. Do you still think everybody apart from us has appointed good managers in the last 4 years ? Why do you ignore the previous 12 years before that ? Fact is, as I've told you, they have been held accountable, they have gone, are you happy with the outcome or not ? no. what i was pointing out was the timing, it came at a time when we weren't doing well and as many pointed out was vastly overpriced. i do not ignore the previous 12 years.you know this,i've said they done well but they stopped doing well and didn't seem to me and others as if they were going to turn it round. now again...i've asked you a few times and am yet to receive an answer......if you keep building debts year on year while being unsuccesful on the field and off...do you keep on going with that tactic until the banks call a halt ? am i happy with the outcome.....could've been better but i'd rather what we have than what i envisage would have happened had it not changed. you wanted rid of a board who backed their managers and had ambition, and they have been replaced by someone who won't back his managers. A good manager, backed by his board, will turn the club around, a good manager not backed by his board will move on and so you have no hope. It isn't "tactic", its having someone with the outlook to succeed, getting rid of them for someone who doesn't back their managers is like getting rid of a good goalscorer just because he has a bad run and replacing him with someone who will never be as prolific. No sense. As you have said, the change has been made, and thats what we have got. Maybe next time, people will appreciate when we have a good board of directors, but I doubt it. We wouldn't have gone into administration, but we certainly could if we are relegated and the crowds dive to what they did for years before 1992. As they nearly did. But nobody above the hard core 15-20000 supporters really cared. As I said to fredbob, what is the way forward ? Do you think its cost cutting, relegation, and half the crowds as a result ? so you do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ? do you really think we are the only club with debts ? Was that a yes or a no? are you madras or are you trying to derail the thread ? Do you think we should have taken Mike Ashleys direction, back in 2001, as UV has asked, rather than have those champions league runs etc ? no we aren't the onlu club with debts. we are one of a group of clubs whose debts have reached a level that aren't sustainable and action is needed before it's too late. in 2001 had we spent all of the sponsorship money a few years in advaance ? had we hocked everything available ? was our wage bill over 60 % of turn over ? now please answer my original question......do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ? have it your way. We will follow Mikes path, sell our best players, buy bargains from Hartlepool and hope to compete with the other big boys. As UV has also said, what a shame we didn't have soopa mike instead of the fat b******, we would have had a solvent club in the championship instead of playing in the San Siro and you would have been wetting your knicks at having a solvent club. Have you ever heard of the phrase "if you don;t take a shot you won't score a goal" ? answer my question please. I've answered it, and unlike some of the numpties, I suspect you know exactly what I mean so stop pretending you don't can you provide a link to the answer you gave,i'm not taking the mick. (no pun intended) Back your managers and you have a chance, we got there in the first place through doing just that. Choosing not to back your managers and compete at the level of the likes of Bristol City will leave you, eeeerrr, .......... well work it out. I;ve said this on numerous occasions, there are too many links. I'm sure baggy will find one if you can't be arsed. so you didn't really answer my question did you ?. i asked ........"do you think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?" I've told you. You're completely unrealistic. NE5, i'm with you on a few things you say but you've lost it here big time...

should have moved for curbishley once the sale wasn't gonna happen, he'd do a fucksite better than JFK but probably wouldn't want to touch this madhouse

No they f***ing well shouldn't. Someone explain to me what the point of having an excellent goalkeeper is when the rest of team is poor? Shay has made countless fantastic saves this season and where has it got us? We're shipping a lot of goals because our midfield doesn't protect the back four and because the defensive fringe players we have are fucking crap. Shay might keep the goals against tally down to 2 instead of 4 but it's still a defeat. We need strength in depth in midfield and defence, and if selling Shay Given will generate the funds for us to do so then it's a no-brainer as far as i'm concerned. At the moment it looks like we could be heading for relegation in which case someone will poach him off us for peanuts anyway. We might as well sell him now and sign a couple of players who could help us scrape enough points to stay in the league. Exactly, it's about priorities, and having 4 good keepers isn't one of them. There's a danger that asking for daft money will see the deal delayed too late blowing our chances of getting in re-inforcements where we really need them. City can afford to take their time, we can't. don't think moneys any use myself, we'll not attract anyone of the quality to keep us up even if we get 10m for given, which is the max i can see johnson & onohua straight swap, or some cash and a maybe a couple on loan til the end of the season like sturridge and the 2 already mentioned, get bodies in at the expenses of one out who we CAN replace from within if, as looks likely, givens move is going to determine our immediate future i hope to fuck its not a cash only deal unless its for 30m which it won't be Johnson isn't keen on coming here according to reports in the press. i'm shocked!

No they f***ing well shouldn't. Someone explain to me what the point of having an excellent goalkeeper is when the rest of team is poor? Shay has made countless fantastic saves this season and where has it got us? We're shipping a lot of goals because our midfield doesn't protect the back four and because the defensive fringe players we have are fucking crap. Shay might keep the goals against tally down to 2 instead of 4 but it's still a defeat. We need strength in depth in midfield and defence, and if selling Shay Given will generate the funds for us to do so then it's a no-brainer as far as i'm concerned. At the moment it looks like we could be heading for relegation in which case someone will poach him off us for peanuts anyway. We might as well sell him now and sign a couple of players who could help us scrape enough points to stay in the league. Exactly, it's about priorities, and having 4 good keepers isn't one of them. There's a danger that asking for daft money will see the deal delayed too late blowing our chances of getting in re-inforcements where we really need them. City can afford to take their time, we can't. don't think moneys any use myself, we'll not attract anyone of the quality to keep us up even if we get 10m for given, which is the max i can see johnson & onohua straight swap, or some cash and a maybe a couple on loan til the end of the season like sturridge and the 2 already mentioned, get bodies in at the expenses of one out who we CAN replace from within if, as looks likely, givens move is going to determine our immediate future i hope to fuck its not a cash only deal unless its for 30m which it won't be

strangely enough, even though its citeh, i don't think we hold the position of strength here - its not like a keeeper is their top priority...they'll know they can wait and pick him up in the summer, their seasons fucked anyways

good snippin that!!

i don't see that any of this matters to the immediate term personally, he either invests some more of his own money in the first team squad or takes the multi-million pound gamble that we go down and his investment turns to shit before his eyes sounds like a fucking stupid thing to say, i know, but at the end of the day the man is still a billionaire and i for one don't see why he can't rustle up another 20m to be spent on players of good age and on good deals until we can ship a heap of the high earners as mentioned before in the summer, and then continue a period of slow rebuilding until he can sell the club what he's opting for is a crazy gamble that imo will fail spectacularly, then what? will he spend money in div one to get us back up? will he fuck, he'll take the parachutes and see if joe can promote us on the cheap, and we all know how that will end sheff wed mk2 for me...not as dramatic as leeds due to us having no debt but i think we'll go down and struggle very, very badly for a number of years until someone else decides to take the crock of shit of his hands

I still can't get my head around that either. At the end of the day if he didn't wanna put his hands in his pockets why the fook did he not just wait until Feb and then come out and say the clubs not for sale ?? nuts ain't it? like he's going out of his way to piss people off now - making that statement created expectation of him that otherwise might not have existed must want to be hated, some type of clinical condition?

skirge, are you not missing the point? do you think the glazers care about manu? or hicks/gillet about liverpool? they couldn't give a f*** i'm sure but they're astute enough to know that success on the pitch = financial success in football i don't give a s*** if ashley cares about us, he should at least care enough about his investment to see us in better shape than we are surely to f***? Thats the bit I don't get, why bother buying us in the first place, was he ever really planning on investing money in a good squad, it cannot be revenge after the way we reacted to the Keegan mess, Surley even if is not that petty. said in another thread how erratic he's been during the whole thing, it boggles my mind...i hate things i can't understand and his motivation & actions throughout are inexplicable to me well, i should say they're kind of explicable to the point of the current mess (if you assume he got his fingers burned buying the club & simply didn't understand what it entailed) because at the current point the only thing that DOESN'T make sense is not investing further in the team, and he's not doing it

skirge, are you not missing the point? do you think the glazers care about manu? or hicks/gillet about liverpool? they couldn't give a fuck i'm sure but they're astute enough to know that success on the pitch = financial success in football i don't give a shit if ashley cares about us, he should at least care enough about his investment to see us in better shape than we are surely to fuck?

probably raised elsewhere, i've been away, but why THE FUCK did ashley release the statement about taking the club forward only to do absolutely nothing whatsoever in that regard? seriously, i know conspiracy theories abound and i don't subscribe, but can anyone offer a better explanation than; ashley is the figurehead of a consortium of spurs fans who clubbed together in order to ruin us? ( ) bad joking aside i truly, truly wish i knew what the fuck was going on - if he'd been consistent one way or the other it'd be make sense but he's been so erratic it's not even funny

1. since when has us backing him got anything to do with anything anyways? people did that when he took over and they were totally fucked over 2. re the bit in bold, see number one...he has been backed and is shrinking the club into division 2, not growing it in any way shape or form it's ashley who needs to take actions, i.e. spend money, that mean he earns the backing of the fans now - nothing else is either relevant or required

how could i argue logically with "coward"? To be fair, you had already lost the argument with your comment before it. had he f*** man, there's so many holes to pick in that post from Spider Jerusalem it's not even funny, you'd be there all day replying to the fucker if you got going...starting with the first line: "Aye he f***ed off after three matches and left us right in the s***." then proceeds to call libertine an ashley apologist while making all the excuses under the sun for the above act of cowardice then calls libertine a coward, genius! It was me that called him a coward as he said he couldn't be arsed to read SJ post. ahem, exit stage right

how could i argue logically with "coward"? To be fair, you had already lost the argument with your comment before it. had he fuck man, there's so many holes to pick in that post from Spider Jerusalem it's not even funny, you'd be there all day replying to the fucker if you got going...starting with the first line: "Aye he f***ed off after three matches and left us right in the s***." then proceeds to call libertine an ashley apologist while making all the excuses under the sun for the above act of cowardice then calls libertine a coward, genius!

superb!!

aye, that's superb...i'd buy 2 and keep one in the wrapper for when the first one wore out