mrmojorisin75

i expected this statement from the club, and it's pretty damning for KK really - i'll now expect a counter claim from him no doubt this will drag on as for wise & "Considering he's the one that chose to bring in players Keegan wasn't happy with (and it's being suggest he didn't even know about) i'd say that the problems do revolve around this misunderstanding/lie)" i've seen nothing from KK to suggest he was unhappy with jonas/colo/bassong/guthrie have you? he got them playing well and talked them up a fair deal in the press you still don't know it was Wise who brought the players in do you? i'd have thought it more likely it was the ex-real scout guy given where most of them came from and, frankly, your own quotes from wise there actually back this up seems to me people are screaming about wise 'cause they detest him from his playing days - for all anyone knows it might be veterre & the other guy shafting KK right? unless i missed some massive piece of insider knowledge like

It deffinately suggests that Wise' role wasn't presented quite as clearly to Keegan as the club now say. Shame most of the other sites that had it seem to have taken it down. so is there any evidence whatsoever that wise was the man who caused the problems with KK and fucked his targets off etc..? 'cause i ain't seen any myself

I still can't believe that anyone actually thinks this is true. Apart from making Keegan sound stupid which he isn't, he has said many times since Jan that he knew the budget was reasonable but not substantial (a lie by the eay). Also this "long term benefit" is shite - just say it was true, how is wanting to try and win something NOW and not in 5 years time so wrong? it's not shite actually is it? it's how every single club in the PL is operating now with the exception of the mega-rich, seeing players as investments, if they don't not only will the not be able to compete but they'd probably go under just think what it would cost to purchase and pay for lampard, beckham and henry man...get it now?

top, top post i've been shocked the way some people have been carrying on - lets face it KK had us playing well but i'm not 100% convinced another manager couldn't emulate it with the same group of players...just not sure where these people are going to go if we bring in the new arsene wenger or something and start the hull game by winning 7-0 with glorious football and go on to have a great season nothing has changed in the grand scheme, we got what a lot of people wanted, i.e. rid of shep & an end to the boom/bust spending cycle i still think ashley will sell up now but if he doesn't we've got to move on and make it work; if he gets the investors he's seeking then we'll see more investment in players, if he doesn't then we'll just have to hope his judgement in wise & co's scouting is sound won't we which so far is looking quite good imo to be fair

"Hypothetically, beggars can't be choosers." "True as much we disliked Shepherd, he invested heavily." "What, a reasonably run club with a good manager and team making steady progress? It is more than realistic enough... although not while these idiots are running things." "Can't be any worse can it? He's much richer and wouldn't be hated by practically every single fan, infact he'd be a hero for getting that tard out of our club." take some time to read these quotes from posters on here (only this page), really read them...it's staggering, one thng has changed in a week, albeit a big one, but there's nothing to say ashley won't choose a manager with the same propensity for attractive football, in fact his short history suggests he will as it was him who appointed KK in the first place why are we now beggars? why do we now laud FS's investment where before it was being slated? why is the club no longer well run and progressing? and yes, it could be a lot worse... dry your fucking eyes lads, seriously, we're NUFC unless you'd forgotten - the cryings only for sky cameras

I'm not sure well run and sucessful are the same thing. Do you think the next manager will be sucessfull? If he fits into the 'new structure' and is a decent coach, maybe. But that doesn't take away from the fact that Keegan was royally shafted and a lot of people believed in him. It looks to me that Keegan was the one trying to shaft Wise, messing the club about over transfers and then using his popularity to try and get Wise the sack. who shafted who ? it comes down to wether keegan knew he wouldn't have total control when he took the job on. while i agree with your point "total control" can be taken certain ways didn't ashley say KK had the final say? sure he did, therefore if the rumours of the club trying to sell owen/barton against KK's will are true then he's perfectly within his right imo he didn't need to have total control, even on incomings as we saw he got them playing well so it suggests to me it's the players being sold that was the issue whether wise was the man making those decisions is another matter, could have been ashley who told him/llambias to do it for all we know?

genius

but even though i think he is the most important player in our team. to want a pay rise after what he's given us doesn't smack as being right. aswell as possibly bringing in a transfer fee it also releases about 5.5mill in wages. i am absolutly torn over wether i want him to re sign. wouldn't worry about it in the slightest, he's gone

What more would you like? Apart from Keegan leaving? Your an example of a fan who wishes we were losing money. Looking beneath the media spin - i cant really complain about our Summer nor our start to the season? Ignoring the media - what more could we do? I'm with you. This keegan wankfest is pathetic. Agreed - the media eat it up. The more it look like we care the more negative the media make us look We need to look to the future. Keegan was great I loved it when he came back but times move on. The last 5 managers have lived under Keegan's shadow and it held us back. Unless we move on the next 5 will have the same problem. i'm seriously, seriously worried about the hull game - i can just see the whole thing being whipped up by the media, the crowd shouting about dennis wise for no reason other than he's southern, ashley out, probably some arsehole throwing something at llamblias or whatever it ain't gonna be pretty and we ain't gonna come out of it looking good to anyone

you simply can't count chelski and the current man city in with everything else 'cause they're outwith it now - the man city you mention in your post were not, they were in that amount of debt by pissing money away on s**** and just prior to being taken over last week were loaning money from their former chairman to finance players iirc, and they acheived nothing anyways you're right, and i've not disagreed that a level of debt is not a bad thing per se but i do not see the relevance of even mentioning fulham and 'boro to make your case, it's getting to the point where you'll not really be able to mention liverpool soon unless something unforseen happens again my point is we're not at the citeh/chelski levels of billionairre ownership and to not cap a debt expediture on players is the way to be playing leeds unless we hit the jackpot and get the next ferguson or wenger O mention the debts of these other clubs because some people on here seem to think we were on the brink of receivership and we have Ashley to thank for Newcastle United still being around at all. It's a myth surrounding the Ashley takeover, because our debts were comparable to a large number of other Premiership clubs (including the ones you mention) and unless I have missed something all these clubs are still around, aren't they? oh, i see, yeah then it's a fair point really still, what you're actually saying in reality then is a club like middlesbrough (not to mention fulham) needs to accrue such a sum of debt to scrape into the top half of the table and/or avoid relegation season upon season logically then there will only ever be one outcome for these clubs, and it isn't pretty - this is the point i think you and NE5 conveniently ignore when people bring up the debt; prior to the takover last year we were so far away from challenging for the CL (which is where the real money is) that chasing that dream had become a burden around our necks, a burden FS would not have been able to put down for the good of the club by trying to instill a scouting network and building the club back from the bottom up...balancing things basically it's only my opinion of course but had FS stayed in charge we'd have seen continued spending on high profile players & wages rather than building a squad, chopping and changing managers (i know i know!) and ultimately increasing the debt amount until it became a huge problem you're correct to say it wasn't a problem, i think peoples fears were that it could have been under FS's continued stewardship

don't know about "properly" but i'm with you on the scouting. the error has been not to keep keegan in the loop (if indeed he was kept out). How more 'properly' do we want we are debt free - wages are under control. If it wasn't for the Chelsea's and Man City's we would now be the model for a well ran club If it was Deschamps walking out - who's side would everyone be on? you ain't from around here are you son?!

'Move on', to what? Lets search & fight for the right thing. Right now, that is having Ashely removed & KK re-instated imo. hitzfeld anyone? spot on by the way dave

don't know about "properly" but i'm with you on the scouting. the error has been not to keep keegan in the loop (if indeed he was kept out). pretty fucking good post by lktmpl to be honest a few people here want to have a proper read of it, the maybe smoke a tab, take a 3 hour walk, have a massage then come back to the foruma and start all over again

you simply can't count chelski and the current man city in with everything else 'cause they're outwith it now - the man city you mention in your post were not, they were in that amount of debt by pissing money away on shite and just prior to being taken over last week were loaning money from their former chairman to finance players iirc, and they acheived nothing anyways you're right, and i've not disagreed that a level of debt is not a bad thing per se but i do not see the relevance of even mentioning fulham and 'boro to make your case, it's getting to the point where you'll not really be able to mention liverpool soon unless something unforseen happens again my point is we're not at the citeh/chelski levels of billionairre ownership and to not cap a debt expediture on players is the way to be playing leeds unless we hit the jackpot and get the next ferguson or wenger

Might want to get your tin hat out. i'll get mine and all then, i'm with baggio on that one - would rather he deflected questions than fucking lie outright personally i think although the reports will be exagerrated about KK's list there will be an element of truth in it as there is in most of this stuff, i know it was a talk in but he's telling people his dream signing would be thierry henry at age 31 (?) with persistent injury problems and being frankly not the player he was 4 years ago not messi, kaka, ronaldo (manu), eto'o, xavi or torres but henry...

I know, stupid us, it's only football man. Hopefully things will be back to normal when we score a goal at home to Hull. I'll be celebrating in my usual way of nodding gently in appreciation unlike the radgies who go mental over a goal, a goal I say. No wonder we're the laughing stock of football reacting to things like we do, so emotional. Why can't we be more like Fulham fans. Fuck off. fuck off? what a twat, what a bairn you said on another thread you're pissed off for buying into the ashley dream or whatever it was was now you've been let down, that's your problem your fucking dummys out mate i'm trying to tell you very little of that "dream" has changed in essence or did you only buy the dream for KK? in which case fair enough but follow the bloke to glasgow and buy a soccer circus shirt or something, don't pretend you're a toon fan 'cause it suggests you support one man

Macca, serious question, are you aware that nearly every club, and certainly every top 4 club has debts of hundreds of millions? It is partly why they are where they are in the league table. Anybody who thinks a club can seriously challenge for the title without debts or huge external investment is living is cloud cuckook land? I believe you have said elsewhere you would rather support a mediocre NUFC that balances the books well than a NUFC that spends more than its incomings in order to put a realistic challenge in to challenge the top clubs? Whilst I accept that position, I don't think many people will agree with you, and I also believe that you are missing a point: with all the billionaires looking to get in on the action the value of Premiership clubs is now less related to its incomings than ever; it's all about the profile of the club and whether it is perceived as being big and successful. When Ashley took over the general consensus was that in order to make money in this sort of venture you need to invest first (accrueing debts if you will). If Ashley hasn't grasped this concept he is well at risk of being in for a shock, especially if this running the club like a business lark will result in us relegated a few years down the line as the likes of QPR will invest heavily to take over the Premiership places left by clubs that will have failed to react to the changes quickly enough. It's a rat race now, and you need to race along to be in with a chance of winning, whether you like it or not.. As this is the crux of your argument ill address this point. Would i be mistaken to think that these clubs were pretty stable and successful before they acquired thse massive debts? Chelsea are "in debt" to Roman, Man U have been left with Glaziers debt, Liverpool with H+G and Arsenal have the stadium debt having all been reasonably successful for many years now. Nufc on the other hand have a fair bit of debt topped off with huge wages without the same level of success OR stability, its hardly a fair comparison in my eyes. Its as though that if Ashley hadnt paid off the debt and in fact added to it, as well as the "roll royce" wages you'd be happier and appeased irrespective of the future of the club. To me what spurs and arsenal have done is what we should be doing, improving the quality of the squad whilst splashing out on big signings but still keeping financially stable, as well as bloodeing younger hungrier players. You don't seem to be aware of the extent of the situation at all. Here's some reading material for you: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/columnists/davidbond/2294763/Credit-crunch-could-hurt-Premier-League-clubs.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2301797/Deloitte-football-finance-review-Club-by-club-Premier-League-analysis.html As I expect there is every chance you will not be arsed to do some investigation into this issue as it doesn't tie in with what you want to believe allow me to make it easier to digest from you by putting a few quotes here: => does that make a 70m debt for Newcastle United in 2007 so extraordinary? Regarding Aston Villa: Regarding Man City: Regarding Fulham: I'm sure after seeing those figures you will agree that Newcastle United was not exactly in a unique debt situation here when compared to their (business) competitors? All in all it's all well saying it will all end up dramatically for those clubs involved and billionaires are cheating when they "buy" their way to titles, but ironically you could just as well claim the top clubs have so far "borrowed" their way to titles and trophies; care to explain to me how that is any less cheating than depending on external investment flat out? stand by for the usual culprits to argue with that now i'm no financial wizard, and i do buy into the "manageable debt" theory of running a football club but i have to point out a few things (which i stand to be corrected on): manu's debt didn't exist in such depth until the glazers i'm ignoring chel$ki for obvious reasons liverpool cannot afford to back their manager for the players he wants nor finance their new stadium due to their debt villa & man city have acheived precisely f*** all more than us despite their debt, same for west ham, fulham and middlesbrough really (minus one cup) so what point, exactly, are you trying to make here? you guys have pulled this debt rabbit out of your arses so often people are starting to believe you can only achieve success with debt, and it is not true as arsenal have proven it's not enough just to say debt "imo" as arsenals debt is very different from manu's and liverpools, for example What's so different about Arsenal's 300+ million pound debt? We aren't saying you can only achieve success through debts, but you can only realistically hope to achieve (i.e. increase the chance of) succes if you are willing to spend like the big spenders. It appears the big spenders spend big through billionaire benefactors or through accruing debts, so it´s got to be either one or the other and for those who like to take the moral highground, one is no more cheating than the other. Not a difficult concept is it? People go on about Arsenal being some special case, and they are, yet also in contradict seem to think the ´Arsenal way´ is a realistic, achievable alternative road to success for us. It isn´t, which is exactly what makes it so special. see above post - arsenal's success has been acheived in spite of the debt not because of it, the debt (to my knowledge) is similar to what we had on expanding the stadium, a very different proposition to spending 300m on players i'm sure you'll agree as you've ignored them i'll take you back to villa, man city & 'boro - what do you propose for them? despite their debt levels they're basically not that much further forward than us (man city pre-windfall) so do they just keep spending and spending chasing the top four? what? you tell me, these are your examples and i'm not sure what point you're making in bringing them up 'cause frankly they're not exactly good adverts for debt in football are they?

Let's see how Liverpool or Arsenal cope once Man City gets into the top 4 which I'm sure they will do within the next couple of years. my point about arsenal is that their debt is different, same as our old "stadium debt" - one of their directors was kicking off at the champions league draw iirc about the stadium when someone asked him about the financial weight or something, he pulled figures that said it's making them money now actually not costing them so i see them as an exception massive difference between that and the club being owned by finance (manu & liverpool) or having a huge debt that's been spent on players (leeds) as in both those situations the clubs future is totally dependent on continued "success", i.e. winning trophies liverpool, on the other hand, might well be royally fucked if man city usurp them as i think they might

socrates as assistant!! i'd shit my pants (metaphorically)

Or a club that can be bought and sold by anyone, a club that can treat its fans anyway they like for example, when a story breaks about the manager either being sacked or resigning, no news for a full day leaving fans in turmoil. Or a club that accepts the 39 game idea from the Premier league, a club that next year decides your seat is worth more than you can afford and sells it to someone else. That kind of club? HTT i'm gonna paraphrase brad pitt in the film seven here and ask: "when you've lost it this bad do you know you've lost it? or do you consider this level of total and utter overreaction normal?" What, theorising on a message board? Don't make me laugh. Just skimming the forum and a topic like this and some of my posts on this subject is normal and sane compared to some things that get posted about and spouted on here. Ask yourself the same question regarding your own reply... i dunno dude, some of your opinions are pretty extreme at the moment what evidence do you have, for example, for being convinced that ashley is stripping the club in order to sell it on at maximum profit that you didn't have on september 1st? why are you theorising about a fan takeover that is a few steps beyond impossible - did you do this when ashley took over? when his paying off of 70m debt in 60 days was publicised? didn't think so... i apologise for taking the piss but the overreactions to KK going are really laughable

Macca, serious question, are you aware that nearly every club, and certainly every top 4 club has debts of hundreds of millions? It is partly why they are where they are in the league table. Anybody who thinks a club can seriously challenge for the title without debts or huge external investment is living is cloud cuckook land? I believe you have said elsewhere you would rather support a mediocre NUFC that balances the books well than a NUFC that spends more than its incomings in order to put a realistic challenge in to challenge the top clubs? Whilst I accept that position, I don't think many people will agree with you, and I also believe that you are missing a point: with all the billionaires looking to get in on the action the value of Premiership clubs is now less related to its incomings than ever; it's all about the profile of the club and whether it is perceived as being big and successful. When Ashley took over the general consensus was that in order to make money in this sort of venture you need to invest first (accrueing debts if you will). If Ashley hasn't grasped this concept he is well at risk of being in for a shock, especially if this running the club like a business lark will result in us relegated a few years down the line as the likes of QPR will invest heavily to take over the Premiership places left by clubs that will have failed to react to the changes quickly enough. It's a rat race now, and you need to race along to be in with a chance of winning, whether you like it or not.. As this is the crux of your argument ill address this point. Would i be mistaken to think that these clubs were pretty stable and successful before they acquired thse massive debts? Chelsea are "in debt" to Roman, Man U have been left with Glaziers debt, Liverpool with H+G and Arsenal have the stadium debt having all been reasonably successful for many years now. Nufc on the other hand have a fair bit of debt topped off with huge wages without the same level of success OR stability, its hardly a fair comparison in my eyes. Its as though that if Ashley hadnt paid off the debt and in fact added to it, as well as the "roll royce" wages you'd be happier and appeased irrespective of the future of the club. To me what spurs and arsenal have done is what we should be doing, improving the quality of the squad whilst splashing out on big signings but still keeping financially stable, as well as bloodeing younger hungrier players. You don't seem to be aware of the extent of the situation at all. Here's some reading material for you: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/columnists/davidbond/2294763/Credit-crunch-could-hurt-Premier-League-clubs.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2301797/Deloitte-football-finance-review-Club-by-club-Premier-League-analysis.html As I expect there is every chance you will not be arsed to do some investigation into this issue as it doesn't tie in with what you want to believe allow me to make it easier to digest from you by putting a few quotes here: => does that make a 70m debt for Newcastle United in 2007 so extraordinary? Regarding Aston Villa: Regarding Man City: Regarding Fulham: I'm sure after seeing those figures you will agree that Newcastle United was not exactly in a unique debt situation here when compared to their (business) competitors? All in all it's all well saying it will all end up dramatically for those clubs involved and billionaires are cheating when they "buy" their way to titles, but ironically you could just as well claim the top clubs have so far "borrowed" their way to titles and trophies; care to explain to me how that is any less cheating than depending on external investment flat out? stand by for the usual culprits to argue with that now i'm no financial wizard, and i do buy into the "manageable debt" theory of running a football club but i have to point out a few things (which i stand to be corrected on): manu's debt didn't exist in such depth until the glazers i'm ignoring chel$ki for obvious reasons liverpool cannot afford to back their manager for the players he wants nor finance their new stadium due to their debt villa & man city have acheived precisely fuck all more than us despite their debt, same for west ham, fulham and middlesbrough really (minus one cup) so what point, exactly, are you trying to make here? you guys have pulled this debt rabbit out of your arses so often people are starting to believe you can only achieve success with debt, and it is not true as arsenal have proven it's not enough just to say debt "imo" as arsenals debt is very different from manu's and liverpools, for example

Or a club that can be bought and sold by anyone, a club that can treat its fans anyway they like for example, when a story breaks about the manager either being sacked or resigning, no news for a full day leaving fans in turmoil. Or a club that accepts the 39 game idea from the Premier league, a club that next year decides your seat is worth more than you can afford and sells it to someone else. That kind of club? HTT i'm gonna paraphrase brad pitt in the film seven here and ask: "when you've lost it this bad do you know you've lost it? or do you consider this level of total and utter overreaction normal?"

I wonder why he didn't throw a "wobbler" after being pissed on by Villa last season, I'd say that was worse then losing to Chelsea or Arsenal. What about 1-5 at home to Man U or 3-0 away to Liverpool, Everton away wasn't any better. The characteristic of the Chelsea and Arsenal games were that they were a bringing down to earth after a period of optimism. We were starting to believe again, and then we were put in our place. Like I said, I think Keegan is vulnerable to mood swings. Just a bit ! It's stating the obvious, isn't it? But it's amazing how many people are leaping to the conclusion that when Keegan walks out, it must be the fault of the person who has upset him. During his first spell, it was very important for him to feel that the momentum was always upwards. He banned the word 'consolidation', didn't he. We were able to keep things going forward, because the Halls were pumping more and more money in for transfers. Keegan didn't stay once the money became tighter. Once things dip, even if things are dipping from quite a good position, he gets discouraged very quickly. from the OP "pathetic" is the wrong word for me; i'd have some questions to ask for KK if i met him, such as - what did he think leaving the club once the window closed would acheive? couldn't he have seen out the season to ensure a bit of stability and then move on quietly in the summer after 18 months in charge? i fully understand it if he lost the plot over them trying to sell players he wanted to keep but they failed in that objective and are now unable to sell until january, so why walk out now? he could have used the time between now and january to keep improving on the pitch & seek the assurances he wanted regarding transfers wonder what happened that meant it all had to be so dramatic? by that i mean if they had sold owen/barton successfully with no replacements i'd get it, but they didn't presume he maybe made an ultimatium on the evening of the window closing or something and there was no going back

he publicly backed the abilities of smith & duff and stood by barton i thought he had us playing good football and we'd have had a good season, but lets not pretend he's arsene-f***ing-wenger eh? What did you want him to say?? " aye Smith & duff are wank like, Hope some mug buy's them from us" i'd prefer a non-comment whatsoever rather than outright lies just my opinion you understand, but i know where you're coming from of course

Because Sky etc are setting their own agenda and need views to back it up. It's unlikely they'd want to interview an intelligent person who can think for themselves. Sky (and others) are presently licking their lips at the prospect of a boycott at the Hull game and the hours/days of newsreel they'll get out of it, I say feck them turn up as normal, fill the ground and don't play into their hands. i was interviewed by sky (for soccer saturday) outside the clubshop when roeder was in charge and there was a bit of unrest before he went...anyways the questions they asked were leading as fuck, basically inviting me to set off into a rant my response, in a nutshell, was "buy better players, players who aren't injured all the time as well and results will improve on the pitch" do you think it made the final cut for soccer saturday? did it fuck...