mrmojorisin75

consider your season if you'd not won the milk cup!! an utter travesty basically given the amount of cash you've been spending of late and number of players bought...still, you did, so i'll shut up

you'd really hope there was something wouldn't you? his wages will be stopped obviously (if he goes down) but i'd expect there to be something in the fee payment agreement about it too to think we'd be idiotic enough to give 5m out to man city for a player who was highly likely to get jail time makes me shudder would be a new level of incompetance for the club

Very true. you gotta make little mickey run though, semblance of value for money...goals per game ain't gonna work but footsteps per game might favourable?

When two abysmal teams clash one has to come away with something so we've got a 50-50 chance when we play bad teams on a bad run away from home invariably we end up losing

the whistle first day of the season?

Says who? Do you know for a fact that debt is on Ashley rather than the club? Has Ashley cleared the debt or do we owe him £100m? None of the details are public, its all guesswork, but like any good self-made billionaire his own fortune is very rarely ever at risk with business ventures these days, if the club went down i reckon the debt would be back on us if he did decide to wash his hands of us. remember the article in the sundays with ashley that said he found out the club was in a lot more debt than he though as soon as he bought it? but he paid it anyway and if he'd known in advance it wouldn't have changed his decision he said in there, i think, that it was all being paid by him and used man u as an example of why we're in the best position 'cause he IS paying it himself whereas they're mortgaging the clubs future and the debt is the clubs only trouble is i also seem to recall that interview being discredited not long after too I remember the article, but it still didn't say if the debt was to be paid back. That's a major issue if we go down. Whoever bought the club would have to pay Ashley what he wants back, not the club. if he's not wiped it out but transferred it; if it's the former it would just be included in the sell on value of the club given ashley presumably wasn't expecting the club to be relegated i'd say it may be the most likely of the two especially as everything he did in buying the club was cash based

Says who? Do you know for a fact that debt is on Ashley rather than the club? Has Ashley cleared the debt or do we owe him £100m? None of the details are public, its all guesswork, but like any good self-made billionaire his own fortune is very rarely ever at risk with business ventures these days, if the club went down i reckon the debt would be back on us if he did decide to wash his hands of us. remember the article in the sundays with ashley that said he found out the club was in a lot more debt than he though as soon as he bought it? but he paid it anyway and if he'd known in advance it wouldn't have changed his decision he said in there, i think, that it was all being paid by him and used man u as an example of why we're in the best position 'cause he IS paying it himself whereas they're mortgaging the clubs future and the debt is the clubs only trouble is i also seem to recall that interview being discredited not long after too I remember the article, but it still didn't say if the debt was to be paid back. That's a major issue if we go down. paid back to him you mean? i see, making himself the major creditor of the club he owns...is that possible? and it wouldn't matter going down unless he calls the debt in either

A very good post highlighting just what a s*** appointment Souness was, from someone who is impartial and no axe to grind. Appointing this walking disaster was Shepherd's biggest blunder from which we are still reeling. What a complete and utter balls up that appointment was. sounds like he's got a massive axe to grind to me like, basically implying souness was the reason liverpool haven't won the league since the early '90's doesn't detract from his post, however If you read his post he says they lost the league under Souness. At no point does he blame future failures to win the league on Souness. "At the time we were top of the league, and were reigning champions. He was awful, starting selling any players we had, and bringing in people like Julian Dicks, Sounsess saw people like this so called hard man as a player in nhis own mould. Anyway we lost the league (weve never won it since)" you read into that part what you want, i'll do the same

Says who? Do you know for a fact that debt is on Ashley rather than the club? Has Ashley cleared the debt or do we owe him £100m? None of the details are public, its all guesswork, but like any good self-made billionaire his own fortune is very rarely ever at risk with business ventures these days, if the club went down i reckon the debt would be back on us if he did decide to wash his hands of us. remember the article in the sundays with ashley that said he found out the club was in a lot more debt than he though as soon as he bought it? but he paid it anyway and if he'd known in advance it wouldn't have changed his decision he said in there, i think, that it was all being paid by him and used man u as an example of why we're in the best position 'cause he IS paying it himself whereas they're mortgaging the clubs future and the debt is the clubs only trouble is i also seem to recall that interview being discredited not long after too

A very good post highlighting just what a s*** appointment Souness was, from someone who is impartial and no axe to grind. Appointing this walking disaster was Shepherd's biggest blunder from which we are still reeling. What a complete and utter balls up that appointment was. sounds like he's got a massive axe to grind to me like, basically implying souness was the reason liverpool haven't won the league since the early '90's doesn't detract from his post, however

howay man, even i can tell you the answer to that robson had (allegedly/truly) lost the players, dyer refusing to play etc...etc... and souness was seen as a disciplinarian with a decent record (to shepherd, this is all from his perspective) blackburn being bottom 3 could be seen as a blip in his time there to an outsider like shepherd as he'd got them promoted and won a cup, back into europe and so on surely you can see that? time changes perceptions but i clearly remember the feeling during that period that the players needed "sorting out" there are your reasons, some sound some not so sound in my opinion...it's more a testament to the short-termism of shepherd that he did what he did shepherd is obviously not an idiot is he? the only multi-millionaire idoits are lottery winners...he just wasn't suited to running a football club - he was obsessed with winning a trophy (presumably to be the local hero) and i don't think you can underestimate the fact souness had previously won a trophy at EVERY other club he'd been to in the mans thinking the fact the blackburn fans were dancing about when we took souness tells it's own story but if ANYONE can tell me or show me that when we signed him they could have predicted just how badly he managed things then i'd be very, very surprised...i basically thought we'd end up mid table but sort out the little turds at the club like dyer, and maybe sneak a cup along the way you asked for freddies intelligent reasoning, not mine i might add Well, I hate Souness, and he would never have been my choice in a million years, but I have to say that post has some merit. There was no merit in it whatsoever. None. It was a s*** appointment from start to finish and most sensible folk said so at the time. that's an intentional attempt to be funny right?

i'm a bit surprised at how highly he's rated, bought the title(s) big time...granted many other inter managers tried that too but the italian league was much stronger then, they've won these titles at an almost unprecedented crisis for milan and juventus otherwise they'd not have done it liverpool defeat was unsurprising, inter are a slow team and liverpool were always gonna hurt them with their pace

eh? So if we don't play him (which we should) we're not technically honouring his contract? So, if we don't do that, he becomes unhappy and will want to leave? Sorted!!! surely the most sensible option would be to take out a contract on HIM, thus rendering everything else null and void nah, if we do that we can't recoup 10p and a half-sucked smartie back from someone gullible enough to buy him from the £6m we wasted on the b******. get haribo as a sponsor, problem solved

Who said we have no money for transfers? I know I'm just arguing I think it's unlikely we have anything like £100m to spend, and how the January transfer targets and (non-)activity do more to suggest we don't than support the idea that we do. Do you believe everything Keegan says in the press? Do you think we have £100m to spend in the Summer? when has anyone quantified what we have to spend under the new owners?

winner against leicester away, there was never a bigger goal for this club

was still drunk from the first game, wondering how we got outwitted by an ex everton comedian of a defender

when you were writing that, what in the previous 9 games of kelvin suggested to you he'd do the right thing? the thing that would make sense and win a game? incredible

eh? So if we don't play him (which we should) we're not technically honouring his contract? So, if we don't do that, he becomes unhappy and will want to leave? Sorted!!! surely the most sensible option would be to take out a contract on HIM, thus rendering everything else null and void

agreed, watched the african nations and he was great you just just turn to shit by changing continents

so there was no money for an alternative , having said he wanted 3 players during the window ? Or are you blaming Keegan for poor judgement ? Or are you happy that NUFC are unable, or unwilling, to take advantage of the fanbase and buy quality from smaller clubs than us ? NE5 i'm critical of a manager who tells everybody who will listen that funds are available, wants to sign players, yet signs no-one 'casue he doesn't deem it prudent the moment the shit hits the fan rumours come out that he's blaming ashley for not backing him you've got your answer, your manager is a liar or he has no credibility....what say you?

False Hair, false position, false versatility, false scowl, false strength, false shooting, false heading, false leader, false hold up play, false link up play, false ability, false everything. Would make a great actor as he has managed to con, I don't know how many managers, into believing he is a top footballer, when he isn't even a footballer in the first place. started laughing at false hair, magic

duff the pragmatist; when someone offers him 70k a week to stumble around in an apparently drunken stupour he'll take it, 'cause he's a pragmatist

It's very likely he gives them away to people for free though. you'd hope so wouldn't you? i'd be terrified if i thought he was hanging them on his walls or making curtains and bedsheets out of them or summat

whatever we do it's vital we score - the likelihood of us keeping a clean sheet with our current confidence levels is very, very slim attack em; stick someone behind the strikers (martins plus one, don't care who but carroll would be my choice), milner for me, and go narrow in midfield - a diamond basically and go for broke...we have the look of a side who will lose if we try to keep it tight, brum are limited so if we go ahead we might surprise ourselves and score a coupla goals

to you and me it is, to michael owen? doubtful