fredbob

So you reckon Alex Ferguson and Brian Clough would have turned a blind eye to a player calling them a prick and shite manager do you? Nope, but they wouldnt of handled it how Shearer did.

FFS what role had Barton got left to play at the club last season after the sending off - cheer leader? lucky mascot? He had succeeded in embarassing the club in the eyes of the whole world (again), letting down yet another manager who gave him a chance, letting down his team mates (again) and do you know what his team mates think of him anyway? word habibbeye btw. Im obviously not putting my point across well enough, this isnt about Barton this is about how he handled the Barton situation, just sets off alrms bells in my mind...

Christ - im sure i said "good/great" not that that makes any difference to the post. If you neither agree or disagree with my post then why say anything? I dont think he will be a good manager - more in the mould of Souness, people who diasgree with me think he'll be nothing like Souness and will be a good manager, theres no grey area here, you either want him here becasue you think he'll be a good manager or you dont want him here becasue you dont. Im struggling to see whats so difficult to comprehend, if you diasgree with me then what is it that you've physcially seen which makes you think he might become a good manager?

the timing of the suspension was shearers fault ? i've seen mourinho say his player deserved to be sent off before. Yeh, i dont think he should of been 'publically' suspended, make him train with the reserves, hell you can effectively suspend him without suspending him - is it that difficult to get around without dragging the clubs name through the mud? The clubs facing its biggest run up to the end of season in about 20 years, psychologically speaking is it healthy to have the public mutterings about the situation whiilst you are trying to concentrate on some of the biggest games of your life? In my mind no. Ive seen Wenger say he saw something which was his players fault, not really the point i was making, Im very confident Mourihno would of said no such thing had he been in the Semi of the CL or the penultimate game to a titel challenign season....its all about context of incident. In my mind Shearer went about it the wrong way. And it shows a degree of naivety and poor decision makingm he didnt look at the big picture.

Crikey, I didnt expect it to go down like this, it seems strange that the posters who are making the suggestion that Shearer wont make a great manager based on how he handled a situation are being castigated by posters who think he will make a good/great manager based on absolutely nothing. Blind faith - something which has been good,great and absolutely shit for the club, strikes again. The way i see it is in that I got an insight into how Shearer thinks in how he handled the whole affair, he let his emotions get the better of him publically with the sour faced interview which gave no one much confidence, (like i say how do the great managers handle situatuions like these), then to compound the decision he publically announces the next day that Barton's been suspended drawing more attention to the club, I watched a program on Mourihno and he said that he acted like a prick publically so that the pressure and attention wasnt put onto players when they misbehaved - now that is brilliant psychology, and the type of psychology which is relatively basic and used 'coicidentally' by the top manager. Sheaer did the exact opposite. Like i say, its just an insight into his mindset, this all hapened within 5 weeks, which makes things even more harrowing, add into the mix what was allegdely said in the changing room and you have a little grip on some form of evidence, enough to justiy my beliefs anyway. The timing of the suspension and everything surrounding it couldnt of come at a worse time, maybe another reason why i dont think he'll be great. Like i say, can you envisage a manager of good quality who would do the same thing in the run up to the business end of a title challenge?

Will get back to this later, but i want to repeat my argument isnt about defending Barton, nothing of the sort, its about how Shearer handled the situation and its relevance of his ability to make decisions, its these incidents which give us a bigger insight into a persons way of handling things and for me, simply put he didnt act in a manner that i thought was the most proffessional or beneficail for the club. In my eyes, Fergie would of kept shctum and dealt later, Wenger would fo defended the situation and dealt with later, Rafa the same, Keane would of done what shearer did, Ince would of done what shearer did, like i say, its not a foolproof theory but it does raise questions and those are the questions im putting to you.

:lol: Yep, Fergie is well known for his softly-softly approach. Classic - hook line and sinker, Fergie isnt known for suspending players full stop. Especially not in the run up to the title challenge. Think about it, the whole thing was melodramatic - you happen to be missing the point as well, its not the incident that makes him a potentially bad manager, its the thinking behind the decision to publically let everyone know theres grief and even the decision to publically announce that he'd been suspended. How many times have you seen Fergie, Wenger Rafa or Mourihno publically portray there absolute disgust at a player? It doesnt happen becasue they are professinall and know how to resolve the situation behind closed doors. Its a not a soflty softly approach Im after, its the approach which is the most professinal and the most benefical to the team.

Debateable, there is no way in a million years that Barton is anything but a shitbag and a thug but the whole thing smacks of how Bellamy was treated, castigated immediately and the whole thing done publically. Good managers just dont suspend players and have rifts like Shearer did with Barton - bare in mind the whole timescale of shearers appointment and the subsequent fallout, i cant imagine another manager in the game who'd of taken the same actions as Shearer. If what was written about the incident was true then shouldnt that raise more questions about Shearers ability, or is anything Barton is alleged to of said inadmissable on account that Bartons a cunt? I have no doubt in my mind that abttewr manager would have been able to handle the situation much more better than how Shearer did. And its part of my fears, its the kind of actions that Keane would (and has taken) and the kind of action that Ince would take, not the kind of action that Guardiola would take. Whats so different? Im not saying they were identical but i am saying that there are worrying similarites, the suspension to Barton meant nothing, it was purely show and tell. A load of bollocks and the act and a person who's not thinking for the benefit of the club but for his benefit - "ill put my foot down to outline my authority" at a point where authoruity and discimpline is the least of his problems. Its the exact kind of attitude that Souness would take, its the exact same thing Souness would of done, its definitely not the thing that a Rafa, Wenger, Mourihno or Fergie would of done, not in that situation.

I dont know of many mentally strong great players who made great managers, as racsit is this maybe, findng a great english manager is practically impossible. I only see Shearer having one mode of management when it comes to issues such as discimpline, i dont think Shearer has the ability in him to know when to put his arm round someones shoulder and when to bollock someone, i think he'll only bollock, the better managers know how to bring the best out in everyone. As the for the question of who else, id rather have Curbishley at the club, god forbid we get pigeonholed with another club legend who doesnt quite cut it but cant be removed easily becasue of fear of the wrath of fans. Id actually much rahter go foreign as well as i think the technical side of managemaent and coaching is much better, Ketsbai was definitely a viable option, if we did a tiny bit of research Im sure we'd find a good manager who'd love the challenge and draw of English football, especially with a good chance of getting in the prem and especially with the oppurtunity to manager in front of 50k. The job is still a good one, just becasue its not Formula 1 it doesnt mean the car is slow.

See I resent the idea that Shearer is already being talked about as the only option, Ive also noticed that a few people have intimated that it will be another major fuck up if he isnt appointed which i think is astounding. The cynical side of me thought that Shearer was in a win win situation and he knew it, I just have a specific criteria about what i want to see in a manager, and Shearer fits only one bit - his presence. Aside from that I thought his handling of Barton was Souness-esque, and its little things like that that make me wary of him. Im actually very confident that he'd get us back up to the prem, but I just dont see him making many improvments whilsts we're up. Just a hunch - not my most articulate post.

Is Shearer most peoples first choice? Im probably in the monority when i say that I dont want him managing the club. I know comparison to Souness will get me slated but charactrer wise and attitude wise Im struggling to see too many difference, anyone care to enlighten me as to what it is that makes Shearer so qualified?

I've answered the point by madras many times. Nobody wants to go into receivership. As for buying players, the next player may be the one who repays his fee and makes a big difference to the team. You have no way of knowing this in advance, apart from those who deal in hindsight and hindsight only. "Are they successful becasue they are in debt or are they coping with debt because they are successful? " THIS comment is nicely phrased, the answer is a bit of both - but the way to go is the same as I've just said. I don't understand why people want us to operate like clubs such as Charlton. They will soon have what they want though, just like when they said we would be better off with a change of owner "no matter who". Shame indi has bowed out - for now - as he can make some decent points even if I don't agree. The reason for "childishness" if you can call it that IMO is brought about by people asking the same things and not understanding the reply. So what happens if those clubs were no longer successful?

nowt to say then ? Just joking man, I'm pretty bored, we all know spending money improves your chances of doing well, but it's not a given, you need the right manager, the right scouts and the right amount of money but you can do well without spending massive amount if you have the right manager e.g. Moyes and Everton. on the other hand, if you are lucky enough to get a decent manager, and it IS a lottery, and don't back him, he'll be off. Like Moyes, unless Everton are taken over or it all suddenly goes tits up for him. When you say "do well", how well do YOU want to do ? It's a lottery getting a good manager? No it's a skill, not an easy one but it is definately a skill. is it now ? We'll see how easily Arsenal replace Wenger and ManU replace Ferguson. Or Everton replace Moyes .......... Even a "good manager" isn't necessarily the "right manager", which I suppose adds credence to NE5's "lottery" theory. Bit simplistic on the whole though, as usual. you mean "realistic", as usual. Which also, as usual, too many people fail to grasp. were you happy with the kinnear appointment ? hey getting a good manager is a lottery right,surely theres as much chance getting a s*** one to turn out good results as there is a good one turning out bad to your thinking or maybe you are piffling again in anattempt to detect any criticism from the your beloved fred ? (conversly it must work with players aswell...shevchenko,veron,woodgate at real,keane at liverpool......good players who didn't do it so surely it means it's pointless spending big as these players prove it works) i'll stop you in your tracks........."back your manager"............what with ? where was the money going to come from......at this point you mention the debt of others and as always i mention the debt of the top 4 is different to ours as they are making money aside from those with sugar daddies where as we have consistently made losses (not a good scenario when begging to the banks with few assets left to hock). look at the other clubs who,like us have lived beyond their means,they are all cutting right back and ask yourself what liverpools or arsenals spending would be like if they missed out on the champs league for 3 or 4 years ? often on here you have alluded to others having thir heads in the sand but it is clear the one one doing an ostrich is yourself in relation to the position fred left us in. silly. Especially when there are still people hell bent on defending Ashley to the bitter end, and I mean bitter end = relegation and with little chance of coming back. Pleased for you that you still appear to write off all those european qualifications and champions league appearances and the manner in which they were achieved. Still, nobody is "embarrassing us" any more, right ? BORING ! we've covered the euro qualifications to death as that has little to do with the position we were in spring 2007. defending ashley to the bitter end......like you defending fred ? i never mentioned being embarassed by fred's utterences. nice to see you keep your head in the sand re our position when fred left. you mentioned Shepherd, not me, with a silly childish comment. Yep, I will "defend" anybody who gave me the only 15 years out of 45 that tried to compete at the levels this club should always compete at, and thus gave me the best most consistent and highest league positions as a result. As I've said before. Then you should be happy that your season ticket money is going towards paying the bills he racked up in the process. The alternative is of course, only supporting the club when they are winning, as you did when the Halls and Shepherd took over [if you even did that] Was that the Hall/Shepherd era where we were nearly relegated from the 1st division? Or the Hall/Shepherd era where we were finishing 13th in the league despite the big spending? nah, the Hall/Shepherd who took over a club days from bankruptcy, getting 15000 gates and couldn't be sold for 1.25m quid, that became a club filling a 52000 all seater stadium, playing in the champions league, qualifying for europe more than anybody but 4 clubs, and was valued at anything between 100m and 200m quid. I am sorry you feel the need to scorn the big spending that did all of that, what a shame you would have preferred solvency and 2nd division obscurity instead of beating Barcelona and playing in the San Siro. You really are one blinkered old man aren't you. Who said I didn't appreciate the wonderful football we have experienced, but you paint the Hall/Shepherd days with such rose-tinted spectacles. You fail to see what it has cost this club to get these things. You know I wouldn't prefer to be in the 2nd division, but a happy medium of the club not being whored out to pay for the fabulous football we saw would have been nice, do you not think? As for the £100-£200 million quid. Are you happy that Sir John Hall and Fred Shepherd pocketed over £180 million between them when this club was sold, especially since Sir John Hall stood on the steps of St James when he first bought the club and stated he wasn't in it for the money! YEAH RIGHT! oh dear. Resorting to insults. How old are you ? I'm not old you daft bugger, and I'm in good health too. If you don't want to listen to others who have seen things [without meaning to sound patronising] then you really do have a serious problem, and are talking like a naive teenager. I don't believe you saw the mediocrity of the 1970's and 1980's if you think the souness, Roeder and Allardyce league positions were mediocre league positions. Sorry like, but I don't. I believed you at first but your own comments have gave me the impression I now have. I have no idea what makes you think I am happy with money going out of the club. All I have said is that the Halls and Shepherd are by far the best owners we have had in 50 years, in fact, the ONLY good owners in that time. To that extent, they deserved something, for the job they did and the initial risks they took, taking over the club in the state it was in. And don't compare the state of the club in 1991 to now, because believe me, it was miles apart. but we're in the same league position now as we were when shepherd left, so its not the league positions you care about? but how much money we spend? seems weird. I don't ever remember us being in such a relegation scrap under Shepherd's tenure though. point taken, but remember we're always only one or two results away from being out of it (just as much as the opposite is true i understand). but to criticise ashley on current league position while stating that the souness roeder allardyce finishes were not mediocre is hypocritical, whereas to criticise ashley on financial grounds is at best naive and at worst a blatant agenda. I really don't know how many times this has to be said. A board that backs their manager and shows ambition will always be better than one who choose not to. i agree, however i feel thats over simplifying the issue somewhat, dont you? in light of the clubs current financial status? You mean seeing 2 of our best players, one of whom has been a fabric of the club and couldn't wait to get away, and our captain to follow soon, is over-simplifying ? I don't think so. In fact, its frightening. no thats not what i mean because thats not what i said. i dont really think thats relevant to backing the manager? as it opens a whole load of other issues regarding whether jfk wanted given and n'zogbia to stay, what the club did to keep them etc, so lets not side track. i agree with you that boards should back their managers financially, but given the clubs finances at present, how should the board be providing more than they currently are? I'm not sure either, but maybe Shay Given could shed some light on it ? As well as Keegan and Owen ? Don't you find their actions tell you something ? i reckon they'd tell you they left cos the club aint going to be challenging anytime soon (and i would say it it was down to the financial mess we are in) you would say we should have kept on borrowing to keep these players ,cross your fingers and hope we find success before the banks say "no" or "err can we have our money back please" I understand what you and the others are saying. You wish we hadnt' played in the Champions League rather than aim for a relegation and solvency, and you think every club except us is successful, always appoint the right man, and make profits at the same time oh we know that trick,the one where you try to make out someone said something they didn't. what i am saying (and you well know it) is that after dropping out the champs league you can gamble a bit to get back in,but if you fail and you keep on gambling and failing.....you end up like all other gamblers who fail. still awaiting your answer by the way of where the money would come from year on year when making losses year on year and do you understand that you can't keep borrowing for ever. Simple difference is, I don't believe Ashley has a clue about football, or how to succeed, nor the desire to do what it takes even if this belief is incorrect. Whereas I have no doubt whatsoever that the Halls and Shepherd would have re-grouped and had another go, and probably had some success too. do you feel you can draw a fair comparison at this point? given that ashley has only had the club for a small fraction of time compared to the last lot? the challenges he faces are different to the ones they faced when taking over, wouldnt you say? Aye, Ashley is in a far better position. In some ways and in other ways not. The club is in far superior position now than it was in the early 90's. It's true that there are loads of things that are better about the club and the situation it finds itself in now than in the early 90s: Bigger, better SJP; better league position; better squad; higher profile; larger crowds; more TV money; more revenue full-stop; improved training facilities; and so-on. However there are a number of things about the club and the current situation that are worse: Bigger debt; higher supporter expectations (therefore increased demand for success, less patience, etc); huge wage bill; players are much more powerful when it comes to contracts, etc meaning it is harder to get rid of players you don't want and bring in players you do; hugely inflated transfer fees and player wages; bigger, stronger opposition, some with money's-no-object budgets; much less room for improvement, especially relative improvement compared to other Premiership clubs; the global "Credit Crunch"; a somewhat tarnished reputation; less obvious ways of improving things, and so-on. So, I don't think it's true that Ashley's in a far better position, some things are better, others are worse, which is easier or more difficult is hard to judge, the problems are different, but there are still problems. not a single thing is worse than in 1991. Nothing. Would you like offer some evidence or arguments to refute the points I made then? Because without that your statement has no validity. you've listed all the improvements yourself ! What else is there ? You can't call expectations and the other things you have listed as "worse" when they are all by-products of the huge improvements and comparative success ? The only thing I would pick out is "tarnished repuation", but to be honest, even that is nowhere near the appalling standing the club had in 1991. I asked you about the problems not the improvements, so will you address the ones I've highlighted below, please: I don't get you, as I said, most of them are by products of being more successul. Players being more powerful is a football problem, including transfer fees and wages. Do you think differently ? But as a football club, football's problems are our problems, are they not? When the Halls and Shepherd took over they had to deal with the external conditions also. Ashley did not take over a perfect club in a perfect market, did he. Therefore there were problems and issues that needed (and still need) to be dealt with, something you seem to be denying. As I said, the problems may not be the same, but there are still problems. To deny that is to deny the obvious and it only takes away from the valid points of your argument. I'm not denying anything. I can't see how you think we or anybody can address bigger issue football wide problems, unless you are advocating a maverick approach, and who is going to do that and run the risk of abject failure, because you must realise that if the big clubs adopt a hard line approach to wages, contracts, etc, the player will just go somewhere else. To slightly move this debate further, I don't know if it is possible to do anything about this, but in the UK at least, nothing would happen without the PFA urging its big hitters to exercise restraint - what I have in mind here is a wage cap of sorts where they would agree to donate money into a pool to look after football[ers] and therefore clubs further down the ladders ? Can't see it happening personally though. BUMP I answered him. Again Does he agree or not, and why i'll answer......... take a look. more and more clubds are having to do that. we took our risk with our bit cash and failed,the risk didn't pay off and we are now at a point where we have to live with it........which other clubs who are making a yearly loss are going on spending sprees ? what are you blabbing on about ? You show me a successful club anywhere in the world who isn;t in debt Are they successful becasue they are in debt or are they coping with debt because they are successful? Find me an unsuccessful club with ambition anywhere in the world who is able to cope with the level of wages and debt that were are paying for? Leeds? Zaragoza? Who else? Who else has been unsuccessful and yet paid out the wages we've paid out without reprecussion?

His record with Wimbledon, not the best squad and shoe string budgets compared to Grant's one year at Chelsea with a gazillion in his budget and a squad full of already made stars. Neither is good enough for us though, but Kinnear is the lesser of the two evils. Not to mention I've made a fairly long post going on about what I base it on just two posts above yours Fucking hell, Im not the biggest fan of Grant myself but Im really struggling to see where your coming from. Grant is worthy of an appointment on the basis of alone that he's not Kinnear, its difficult to say he did a brilliant job at Chelsea, Id like to see how kinnear would do at Chelsea in the exact same circumstances, my guess is that CL final, PL runner up and Carling Cup runners up would be nothing but a pipe dream in Jose's little potato head. You can't compare it that way though, as our situation at the time Keegan left didn't call out for someone who had managed a major club, it called out for someone to come in and stabilize the ship. And when nobody else came in, we got Kinnear. And he was probably quite a long way down on Ashley's "to-call list". On the other hand, he has experience from handling a situation similar to our current financial predicament, and has done well in the past with a shit side by hammering into their heads a "us against the world" mentality, just what we appeared to be needed, and still seem to need at the moment. Having appointed Avram Grant at the same time would perhaps have been a better choice of manager on paper, but he has never been used to a shoe-string budget, nor a relegation fight or to attempt keeping morale up in a club the entire world seemed to think would blow up due to all the turmoil. He has a name, that's it. We don't know his ability with a club that's not filthy rich and already have a successful squad. I'd not have been willing to take such a chance on a manager just because of his name, hence why I think Kinnear under our current circumstances is the better option of the two. And will remain the better option until we have a bottomless transfer kitty or an already successful squad. Though then again, we'd not be looking at Grant as he'd not be good enough anyways. Kinnear is a manager for teams that have an uphill struggle. Grant is a manager for teams that don't have any struggle because the players are good enough to work without a manager. I'm amazed people even need to think about who'd they'd rather have of Kinnear and Grant. Just because Kinnear hasn't done all too well with us, does not mean Grant would have done better. I'd gladly put all my money on the contrary. I still think neither are good enough for us though, as I've said before. I just think Kinnear is the obvious lesser evil here. We got Kinnear becasue he's the only man who'd take it on such a temp basis, I'm sorry i really dont see your point, a good manager will be able to coach good play into good players, style of football has nothing to do with this, nor does mentiality, nor history, there should be no other criteria for suitablilty for the job other than the most suitable candidate for the job being the manager who will do the best with the players we have through good management. The mere fact that Kinnear has battled so many relegations is becasue he's a poor manager who allows his teams to get to that sitatuion through poor management. Although Grant has only delved once into European football at Chelseas, Im pretty confident that he's managed on budgets at the clubs he's been at. I mentioned Kinnear at Chelsea becasue it lends itself to a fair comparision of what how you percieve there skill levels, for me there is no way Kinnear would of achieved what Grant did (or didnt achieve) so what Im syaing is that with the stregnth of Chleseas squad not being a variable between the 2 compairiosn, any difference would be the skill of the manager, which is why i think Grant would shit all over Kinnear.

His record with Wimbledon, not the best squad and shoe string budgets compared to Grant's one year at Chelsea with a gazillion in his budget and a squad full of already made stars. Neither is good enough for us though, but Kinnear is the lesser of the two evils. Not to mention I've made a fairly long post going on about what I base it on just two posts above yours Fucking hell, Im not the biggest fan of Grant myself but Im really struggling to see where your coming from. Grant is worthy of an appointment on the basis of alone that he's not Kinnear, its difficult to say he did a brilliant job at Chelsea, Id like to see how kinnear would do at Chelsea in the exact same circumstances, my guess is that CL final, PL runner up and Carling Cup runners up would be nothing but a pipe dream in Jose's little potato head.

From whom? the fans/mongs. That's kinda tarring people with the same brush and it's not really fair. Dalglish - class manager, did ok, fans give him no time Gullit - shite manager, did dhite, fans gave him no time in the world Sir Bobby - class manager, did well, fans gave him all the time in the worlduntil we finished 5th and the fans turn on his back. Souness - shite manager, did shite, fans gave him no time Roeder - shite manager, did shite, fans gave him no time Allardyce - shite manager, did shite, fans gave him no time Keegan - class manager, did well in the grand scheme of things, fans gave him all the time in the world Kinnear - meh Should we, by some stroke of luck, appoint someone like Martinez - his 'time' would depend entirely on how he started. I don't think he'd unpopular appointment but he is a bit of an unknown quantity. If he started badly then fans would get on his back instantly... so in fairness to you, in this respect you would be right calling them mongs - given where we are atm, and given the potential of this manager. In the past however - whenever a manager hasn't been given time, the fans have been dead right tbh. So its not fair but he's right. Im sorry but i disagree with most of that post, newcastle fans wont see the sense in this appointment becasue there are only 3 types of managers who are good enough for this club - the world class appointments, the local lengends and the flavour of the months. Martinsez isnt mentioned enough on match of the day to be considerd flavour of the month yet. No time - no chance to succeed. Out of the 8 appointments, in my opinion nufc fans have called it right 4 times, definitely.

So add a minimum of £50m on top of the 'crippling financial problems' (their words), is that what you're really saying you want him to do? I wanted him to invest the 50m into making sure the ream was not involved in a relegation battle - Oh, wait - that would have meant allowing the manager to manage.... If you'd had said that he could (and should) have freed up an extra 5-10 mil during the Jan window to get those one or two player that we will need if we get anymore injuries then i'd have agreed with you as that should be manageable in a debt sense and not a mad gamble. Throwing a minimum or 50m here and now is just crazy talk. Normally I would agree - but do you think it was wisely spent on gambling on the shares of a company that went down ? He lost THE LOT(100m), so 50 spent on players would have been a far better investment(in fact, 50m spent on booze would have been a better investment..!!). What a skewed way of looking at things, £50m would of been better wasted on the club....only it wouldnt of been wasted - or would it?? Incidentally the gamble took place before Ashley was badly affected by the recession...the other thing is that people are still failing to realise that spending big money would of added the clubs financial woes in terms of wages, supposing we add to the wage bill and fork out £50m in transfer fees, then what happens the next season - would the fans accept a curtial of spending? How do we look to invest next year? Do we sell those on inflated wages? Where is the next lot of money coming from? Howto we get to the next level without relying on Ashleys millions? The only way to do this is ensure that the players we do get represent absolute value for money whilst not spending on large wages.

Is Martins eligible for the Webster ruling? Been here for 3 years and is under 28? How does it work exactly?

nailed. Nobody has responded to my genuine question I made last night either. I wonder why, I suspect its because they would all be happy to be backing Keegan or attempting to make progress but won't admit it because it doesn't fit with their "prudency" and "debts" angle ....... or any old stick to beat the old board with. Nowt changes. Amazing how many people fail to realise that the teams who are able to pour funds into the first team all started out in a much better financial situation than us. You cant just add to an inflated wage bill and debt level and hope for a form of finance to pay it off (ie CL). We need to get our wage bill down to a sensilbe level and then look to invest like Villa have done, like Spurs have done like Sunderland have done, its interesting that Wigan and Everton (teams in similar dire situation to our regarding wages and debt) havent really spent the going amount either, coincidence? Its such a simple point. the mackems ? don't make me laugh. this is what an expert in finance did for them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Murray Are you kidding me? The Mackems have spent shit loads. Why is that hard to understand? The biggest spenders sice the Tv money came in have all been previously financilly prudent, (at the sake of ambition, true) Im glad we didnt sacriice ambition to be prudent in the past- Im glad we acheived all those CL qualifications but one thing for sure, I recognise the need (like many) to hold back now becasue of the financially precarious situation we're in at presnt. If you want to equate that to a scarifice of ambition in the short term to build on ambition in the long term then thats fine.

nailed. Nobody has responded to my genuine question I made last night either. I wonder why, I suspect its because they would all be happy to be backing Keegan or attempting to make progress but won't admit it because it doesn't fit with their "prudency" and "debts" angle ....... or any old stick to beat the old board with. Nowt changes. Amazing how many people fail to realise that the teams who are able to pour funds into the first team all started out in a much better financial situation than us. You cant just add to an inflated wage bill and debt level and hope for a form of finance to pay it off (ie CL). We need to get our wage bill down to a sensilbe level and then look to invest like Villa have done, like Spurs have done like Sunderland have done, its interesting that Wigan and Everton (teams in similar dire situation to our regarding wages and debt) havent really spent the going amount either, coincidence? Its such a simple point.

They are probably not anti-Ashley enough for NE5, who has already given 3 years money to Mike Ashley cos he hates him that much! unlike you, who only supports/supported the team when they were winning ie under the Halls and Shepherd. Ahhh right, prove it! And while you are there, prove that you were there before Hall and Shepherd. I take it that you were pro-Halls and shepherd then, or did you stop going when we suffered this "mediocrity" that you speak of ? I was neither pro or anti I have a perspective which tells me what true mediocrity is. Nobody I know who supported the club during the 1970's and 1980's would say that finishing 13th in the top league is "mediocre" in comparison. On the other hand, I have knowledge and know about the 80's and 70's whereas I'm now thinking that you don't, but you won't be the first person I've came across who said they supported the club during those times that didn't. What do you think of my avatar. When do you think that was taken ? I pleased for you that you think finishing 13th is accpetable and your happy that Ashley has bettered this acceptable in his first season in charge. mackems.gif I don't think it is acceptable, and neither did the Halls and Shepherd which is why they changed the manager, and backed him to help him to try and do better. Unlike Ashley, who every year he is here, will be delighted to finish 4th bottom. Are you saying your happy Hall and Shepherd nearly ran the club into the ground and amassed huge debt? mackems.gif

They are probably not anti-Ashley enough for NE5, who has already given 3 years money to Mike Ashley cos he hates him that much! unlike you, who only supports/supported the team when they were winning ie under the Halls and Shepherd. Ahhh right, prove it! And while you are there, prove that you were there before Hall and Shepherd. I take it that you were pro-Halls and shepherd then, or did you stop going when we suffered this "mediocrity" that you speak of ? I was neither pro or anti I have a perspective which tells me what true mediocrity is. Nobody I know who supported the club during the 1970's and 1980's would say that finishing 13th in the top league is "mediocre" in comparison. On the other hand, I have knowledge and know about the 80's and 70's whereas I'm now thinking that you don't, but you won't be the first person I've came across who said they supported the club during those times that didn't. What do you think of my avatar. When do you think that was taken ? I pleased for you that you think finishing 13th is accpetable and your happy that Ashley has bettered this acceptable in his first season in charge. mackems.gif

"But like any business with assets the club has debts. I paid £134 million out of my own pocket for the club. I then poured another £110 million into the club not to pay off the debt but just to reduce it. The club is still in debt. Even worse than that, the club still owes millions of pounds in transfer fees. I shall be paying out many more millions over the coming year to pay for players bought by the club before I arrived." I'm repeating myself now because you're blind to the contradictions. If we're making a £34m loss, is that not debt owed to someone? (not a financial expert just a query)

So why do people expect Ashley to spend his personal wealth on the club? If Shepherd nor the rest of the shareholders spent any of their own personal wealth on the club, why is it that people expect differently from Ashley? I certainly don't expect that at all. Why didn't they just come out and say that the finances were in such a mess? That's my main issue, the lack of honesty and transparency. They did, quite a few times. They even used the metaphor "was about to collapse like a house of cards", I still dont think thats going to be an excuse for them to not invest, my guess is that they're genuinely dissapointed with the lack of major investment, it'll come, im sure of it.