fredbob

Id also add that they didnt make those bad appointments off the back of consistent CL qualifications and a 5th place finish. I cant imagine the thought process involved in deciding that Souness would be a suitable replacement for SBR. One that would equal his achivements at the club if not improve on them. To even consider putting SBR and Souness on the same level makes my blood run cold.

FFS Ashley has chosen to put the club in limbo and announce to the world that he wants rid of the club at the very first sign of unrest. He has let it be known that he wants to make around £100m profit from his disastrous year in charge. Just like the fact that Shepherd is no longer chairman has NOTHING to do with what supporters wanted in the past. Ashley HAS NOT been forced out by a few banners and a bit of a protest now. He either intended to sell the club on for a profit from the start, or he realised making money out of a club is not as easy as playing Football Owner on the playstation and wants to get out quick before he runs the club into the Championship and actually loses some of his money. Just bought the club for a bit of fun? Don't make me laugh. Okay then Mike. Stop crying for a second, put your money where your mouth is, and sell up for what you've put in, ie around £200m. Let the new owners spend the £100m profit you're asking for on players for the team, and we can all love the football together. We've been through this before UV - had the fans not protested would he of sold? We dont know but I'm sure ADUG would answer that question having been alledgedly told in no uncertain terms the club wasnt for sale. The point i was making about politics is that the bar fell off and it didnt take much, in fact it didnt take any evidence whatsoever. No surprises you missed it. Theres still no reason to make it public - he could still of done it in private. Edit: the value of the club defined by the shares was £134m the value of debt was £100m. The real value of the business is therefore NOT £234m but the value someone is willing to pay for a 'debt free' business with a turnover of approximately £90m and a playing squad of £100m with a weekly customer base of 50k+.

You don't buy into that surely do you? It reads to me that you're trying to convince yourself of this in order to convince yourself that the set-up/system/structure Ashley put in place is the right thing for the club and if that really is the case you've lost it mate. Seriously. that is the case with a lot of people. Keegan walked out in 1997 because he couldn't work under a new structure...a structure which you keep defending to the hilt non-stop under Shepherd which did bring a relative amount of success. you won't find a post by me defending the club going PLC Apology accepted. But you do defend Shepherd, and Keegan walked out first time not long after he took over as Chairman iirc, because of what was happening with the club. After a pretty average first few seasons, Shepherd started to get it right and we had a bit of success. Who's to say if Keegan hadn't stuck it out for a bit back then, that he couldn't have got us back to where we were when Hall was in sole charge? Same criteria applies for today. Who's idea was it to go PLC ? Who had the power to make such a decision ? I don't think it was Shepherd, but in the context of it being a board thing [which is what I've always said] then you would have to say they all did it, but such a decision isn't a footballing one so it was even more unlikely to be a minor shareholder all on his own. The wheels to go PLC were in motion before Shepherd became chairman, but I'm not arguing about the merits of whoever was chairman and I never have. One thing you need to be successful, more than anything else, is to back your manager, and this is why I've stuck with the old board, whoever the chairman is. Do you mean 'back the manager financially' , 'back the manager's judgement' or both? and when happens when the boards judgement is seen to be crap ? so how many clubs can appoint winning managers ? Surely a "big club" with big ambitions who are always competing to get the best players out there should have no problems appointing a competent manager at worst? you can go back decades naming big clubs who appointed managers that didn't win things, even when they acted big, which NUFC have done for only 15 years out of 44 years I've supported them. You can also go back decades and find clubs who have appoitned good managers and not backed them - sound familiar? How come ones accpetable yet the other isnt? Also noticed how you phrased is "managers that didnt win things" - how about appointing a competenet manager. Anyway i think we're digressing and i dont want to turn it into one of "those" threads. you can indeed. Joe Harvey, Gordon Lee and Arthur Cox would without a shadow of doubt done better at Newcastle with the Halls and Shepherd running the club than the people who were doing it at the time. Lee and Cox buggered off to clubs that would back him ie Everton, and Cox to Derby....then in the 3rd division but thats where he went, such was the depth of his justified anger and disappointment at his employers. This is the pattern you see through the game. Good managers move to clubs that back them, and leave ones that don't. I can name you examples stretching back decades, but shouldn't really have to mate. all 100% true and theres no denying it. but apppointing a poor manager,you're right lots of clubs have done it,but appointing another bad one as his successor shows poor judgement,to appoint a third off the spin is crap in the extreme and you would say it was the actions of a crap board if anywhere else. there is no doubt that Souness was a disastrous and poor choice, but Roeder had some merit - other clubs have promoted people from within - and Allardyce certainly had merit. The club had appointed - and attracted - trophy winners before, which is something they completely failed to do pre-1992. Whatever the ins and outs of all this - who is going to have a guess at how long it will take for this club to match the league positions and european qualifications achieved under the Halls and Shepherd ? And THAT is the 64 dollar question, and the only one that counts that we are interested in. Its what I've pointed out for ages, which was never acknowledged by other so called long term supporters who only bleated on about how "embarrassed" the poor little dears had been. Which lends itself to the question that was posed earlier in this thread, how are we supposed to match those excellent finishes and European adventures when the boards arent even given a chance to make any real impression? Its the politics of this club bringing it down. How high have we set the bar and how sturdy is that bar? So far the evidence suggests that its not gonna take too much for the bar to fall. I understand your point, but in my view Ashley's approach ticked all the wrong boxes and just wouldn't have worked. It was running the club like a 2nd rate one. If you want to match the trophy winning clubs, they are showing you how its done, you need players that they themselves want. Then this is the part where we agree to disagree - i think it would of worked you dont. I also dont think we saw enough of his plans for us to pass comment on it as an 'absolute'. I saw enough evidence to suggest he was looking to compete and invest you dont. (Modric - rumoured to turning the heads of Chelsea, Barca etc) I also think that it todays current climate irrespective of the agenda behind it, he should be commended for clearing the debt, who knows how this could set us up for the future.

You don't buy into that surely do you? It reads to me that you're trying to convince yourself of this in order to convince yourself that the set-up/system/structure Ashley put in place is the right thing for the club and if that really is the case you've lost it mate. Seriously. that is the case with a lot of people. Keegan walked out in 1997 because he couldn't work under a new structure...a structure which you keep defending to the hilt non-stop under Shepherd which did bring a relative amount of success. you won't find a post by me defending the club going PLC Apology accepted. But you do defend Shepherd, and Keegan walked out first time not long after he took over as Chairman iirc, because of what was happening with the club. After a pretty average first few seasons, Shepherd started to get it right and we had a bit of success. Who's to say if Keegan hadn't stuck it out for a bit back then, that he couldn't have got us back to where we were when Hall was in sole charge? Same criteria applies for today. Who's idea was it to go PLC ? Who had the power to make such a decision ? I don't think it was Shepherd, but in the context of it being a board thing [which is what I've always said] then you would have to say they all did it, but such a decision isn't a footballing one so it was even more unlikely to be a minor shareholder all on his own. The wheels to go PLC were in motion before Shepherd became chairman, but I'm not arguing about the merits of whoever was chairman and I never have. One thing you need to be successful, more than anything else, is to back your manager, and this is why I've stuck with the old board, whoever the chairman is. Do you mean 'back the manager financially' , 'back the manager's judgement' or both? and when happens when the boards judgement is seen to be crap ? so how many clubs can appoint winning managers ? Surely a "big club" with big ambitions who are always competing to get the best players out there should have no problems appointing a competent manager at worst? you can go back decades naming big clubs who appointed managers that didn't win things, even when they acted big, which NUFC have done for only 15 years out of 44 years I've supported them. You can also go back decades and find clubs who have appoitned good managers and not backed them - sound familiar? How come ones accpetable yet the other isnt? Also noticed how you phrased is "managers that didnt win things" - how about appointing a competenet manager. Anyway i think we're digressing and i dont want to turn it into one of "those" threads. you can indeed. Joe Harvey, Gordon Lee and Arthur Cox would without a shadow of doubt done better at Newcastle with the Halls and Shepherd running the club than the people who were doing it at the time. Lee and Cox buggered off to clubs that would back him ie Everton, and Cox to Derby....then in the 3rd division but thats where he went, such was the depth of his justified anger and disappointment at his employers. This is the pattern you see through the game. Good managers move to clubs that back them, and leave ones that don't. I can name you examples stretching back decades, but shouldn't really have to mate. all 100% true and theres no denying it. but apppointing a poor manager,you're right lots of clubs have done it,but appointing another bad one as his successor shows poor judgement,to appoint a third off the spin is crap in the extreme and you would say it was the actions of a crap board if anywhere else. there is no doubt that Souness was a disastrous and poor choice, but Roeder had some merit - other clubs have promoted people from within - and Allardyce certainly had merit. The club had appointed - and attracted - trophy winners before, which is something they completely failed to do pre-1992. Whatever the ins and outs of all this - who is going to have a guess at how long it will take for this club to match the league positions and european qualifications achieved under the Halls and Shepherd ? And THAT is the 64 dollar question, and the only one that counts that we are interested in. Its what I've pointed out for ages, which was never acknowledged by other so called long term supporters who only bleated on about how "embarrassed" the poor little dears had been. Which lends itself to the question that was posed earlier in this thread, how are we supposed to match those excellent finishes and European adventures when the boards arent even given a chance to make any real impression? Its the politics of this club bringing it down. How high have we set the bar and how sturdy is that bar? So far the evidence suggests that its not gonna take too much for the bar to fall.

You don't buy into that surely do you? It reads to me that you're trying to convince yourself of this in order to convince yourself that the set-up/system/structure Ashley put in place is the right thing for the club and if that really is the case you've lost it mate. Seriously. that is the case with a lot of people. Keegan walked out in 1997 because he couldn't work under a new structure...a structure which you keep defending to the hilt non-stop under Shepherd which did bring a relative amount of success. you won't find a post by me defending the club going PLC Apology accepted. But you do defend Shepherd, and Keegan walked out first time not long after he took over as Chairman iirc, because of what was happening with the club. After a pretty average first few seasons, Shepherd started to get it right and we had a bit of success. Who's to say if Keegan hadn't stuck it out for a bit back then, that he couldn't have got us back to where we were when Hall was in sole charge? Same criteria applies for today. Who's idea was it to go PLC ? Who had the power to make such a decision ? I don't think it was Shepherd, but in the context of it being a board thing [which is what I've always said] then you would have to say they all did it, but such a decision isn't a footballing one so it was even more unlikely to be a minor shareholder all on his own. The wheels to go PLC were in motion before Shepherd became chairman, but I'm not arguing about the merits of whoever was chairman and I never have. One thing you need to be successful, more than anything else, is to back your manager, and this is why I've stuck with the old board, whoever the chairman is. Do you mean 'back the manager financially' , 'back the manager's judgement' or both? and when happens when the boards judgement is seen to be crap ? so how many clubs can appoint winning managers ? Surely a "big club" with big ambitions who are always competing to get the best players out there should have no problems appointing a competent manager at worst? you can go back decades naming big clubs who appointed managers that didn't win things, even when they acted big, which NUFC have done for only 15 years out of 44 years I've supported them. You can also go back decades and find clubs who have appoitned good managers and not backed them - sound familiar? How come ones accpetable yet the other isnt? Also noticed how you phrased is "managers that didnt win things" - how about appointing a competenet manager. Anyway i think we're digressing and i dont want to turn it into one of "those" threads. you can indeed. Joe Harvey, Gordon Lee and Arthur Cox would without a shadow of doubt done better at Newcastle with the Halls and Shepherd running the club than the people who were doing it at the time. Lee and Cox buggered off to clubs that would back him ie Everton, and Cox to Derby....then in the 3rd division but thats where he went, such was the depth of his justified anger and disappointment at his employers. This is the pattern you see through the game. Good managers move to clubs that back them, and leave ones that don't. I can name you examples stretching back decades, but shouldn't really have to mate. So in your mind a person is right to feel a board should leave becasue "they dont back a good manager" but are wrong to want a board to leave for backing a crap appointment(s). They seems paradoxily the same issue. EDIT: The point in question is that if you feel it was the right time for a change (like 99.9% of the people out there) then you're indirectly acknowledging that they werent doing a good job anymore.

You've explained how it could help us, which again you didn't have to explain because I know all that. I simply offered that becoming a PLC didn't really help the club in terms of the end result and it is that in which I was knocking, and not the virtues of being a PLC. You're arguing a point I wasn't making. How about arguing against the point I was and that is becoming a PLC didn't help the club (not that it wouldn't or couldn't). You keep spinning your patronising s**** though, I'm sure it will impress someone. Oh look, Fredbob's impressed You couldnt make this up. Chez hands his arse to Fredbob... Good one. Maybe after you've finished using yours as a mouthpieces we can get back onto something that makes sense. Are you trying to say I talk s**** like Is this another thing you dont understand? Double ouch. You're a bitch Fredbob.

You don't buy into that surely do you? It reads to me that you're trying to convince yourself of this in order to convince yourself that the set-up/system/structure Ashley put in place is the right thing for the club and if that really is the case you've lost it mate. Seriously. that is the case with a lot of people. Keegan walked out in 1997 because he couldn't work under a new structure...a structure which you keep defending to the hilt non-stop under Shepherd which did bring a relative amount of success. you won't find a post by me defending the club going PLC Apology accepted. But you do defend Shepherd, and Keegan walked out first time not long after he took over as Chairman iirc, because of what was happening with the club. After a pretty average first few seasons, Shepherd started to get it right and we had a bit of success. Who's to say if Keegan hadn't stuck it out for a bit back then, that he couldn't have got us back to where we were when Hall was in sole charge? Same criteria applies for today. Who's idea was it to go PLC ? Who had the power to make such a decision ? I don't think it was Shepherd, but in the context of it being a board thing [which is what I've always said] then you would have to say they all did it, but such a decision isn't a footballing one so it was even more unlikely to be a minor shareholder all on his own. The wheels to go PLC were in motion before Shepherd became chairman, but I'm not arguing about the merits of whoever was chairman and I never have. One thing you need to be successful, more than anything else, is to back your manager, and this is why I've stuck with the old board, whoever the chairman is. Or did Keegan walk that time because he knew that in the short-term he'd have to sell the likes of Ferdinand & Ginola? And Dalglish even said himself that it was the club that accepted the money from Bolton for Robbie Elliott, not him. If he'd stuck out that first year or so, then the money was made available for him by Shepherd. (although to be fair to Dalglish, a fair bit of his early spending was buying in fringe players to help re-set up the reserve side which Keegan got rid of). Who's to say the same thing wouldn't have applied here? I said a few posts ago that you wouldn't find any posts by me agreeing with the club going PLC ? As far as backing the manager goes, I have said that I had reservations about it until the continued backing their managers. This has been said before, its not really my fault that people don't see it [but I'm sure I'll still get the blame] and I'll say it again, who has backed their managers more than the Halls and Shepherd at NUFC. Answer = nobody else has competed at the top levels while running this club for over 50 years. Lastly, why do you persist in thinking that a minority shareholder has been running the club single handed ? Agreed and they were able to continue backing their managers because they raised finances through the public offering. So not Sky money, season ticket sales and income from European football, then? They were able to back managers because of the money coming into the club from ST sales, Sky, European jaunts, sponsorship, other commercial ventures and not because of money raised by going public. So in the midst of all this - remind me again how was the Rt Hon. Keegan right to walk the first time? What exactly did he 'forsee' and how was his actions 'perfectly justified'? Or are you just talking shit?

You've explained how it could help us, which again you didn't have to explain because I know all that. I simply offered that becoming a PLC didn't really help the club in terms of the end result and it is that in which I was knocking, and not the virtues of being a PLC. You're arguing a point I wasn't making. How about arguing against the point I was and that is becoming a PLC didn't help the club (not that it wouldn't or couldn't). You keep spinning your patronising s**** though, I'm sure it will impress someone. Oh look, Fredbob's impressed You couldnt make this up. Chez hands his arse to Fredbob... Good one. Maybe after you've finished using yours as a mouthpieces we can get back onto something that makes sense. Are you trying to say I talk s**** like Is this another thing you dont understand?

You don't buy into that surely do you? It reads to me that you're trying to convince yourself of this in order to convince yourself that the set-up/system/structure Ashley put in place is the right thing for the club and if that really is the case you've lost it mate. Seriously. that is the case with a lot of people. Keegan walked out in 1997 because he couldn't work under a new structure...a structure which you keep defending to the hilt non-stop under Shepherd which did bring a relative amount of success. you won't find a post by me defending the club going PLC Apology accepted. But you do defend Shepherd, and Keegan walked out first time not long after he took over as Chairman iirc, because of what was happening with the club. After a pretty average first few seasons, Shepherd started to get it right and we had a bit of success. Who's to say if Keegan hadn't stuck it out for a bit back then, that he couldn't have got us back to where we were when Hall was in sole charge? Same criteria applies for today. Who's idea was it to go PLC ? Who had the power to make such a decision ? I don't think it was Shepherd, but in the context of it being a board thing [which is what I've always said] then you would have to say they all did it, but such a decision isn't a footballing one so it was even more unlikely to be a minor shareholder all on his own. The wheels to go PLC were in motion before Shepherd became chairman, but I'm not arguing about the merits of whoever was chairman and I never have. One thing you need to be successful, more than anything else, is to back your manager, and this is why I've stuck with the old board, whoever the chairman is. Do you mean 'back the manager financially' , 'back the manager's judgement' or both? and when happens when the boards judgement is seen to be crap ? so how many clubs can appoint winning managers ? Surely a "big club" with big ambitions who are always competing to get the best players out there should have no problems appointing a competent manager at worst? you can go back decades naming big clubs who appointed managers that didn't win things, even when they acted big, which NUFC have done for only 15 years out of 44 years I've supported them. You can also go back decades and find clubs who have appoitned good managers and not backed them - sound familiar? How come ones accpetable yet the other isnt? Also noticed how you phrased is "managers that didnt win things" - how about appointing a competenet manager. Anyway i think we're digressing and i dont want to turn it into one of "those" threads.

But you seem to have lost complete faith in him now - but so far havent presented anything substantial to back these feelings up. Im not asking for you in particular to do so but its the same with a lot of people everyone has this definitive opinion but no one backs it up or takes in account the situation at the time. In my eyes the only thing that Ashley has done wrong so far that we can definitievly criticise him for is for not doing his research on the club and appointing Keegan. I think Dave is quite right to have lost faith in him, and also quite right to admirably admit it. My point isnt that he's lost faith, its that he and alot of others have lost all their faith and i cant understand why. Even I've lost faith in him becasue i truly dont know his full intentions but all im doing is pointing out whats right in front of there eyes becasue not many people seem to be acknowledging it.

You've explained how it could help us, which again you didn't have to explain because I know all that. I simply offered that becoming a PLC didn't really help the club in terms of the end result and it is that in which I was knocking, and not the virtues of being a PLC. You're arguing a point I wasn't making. How about arguing against the point I was and that is becoming a PLC didn't help the club (not that it wouldn't or couldn't). You keep spinning your patronising s**** though, I'm sure it will impress someone. Oh look, Fredbob's impressed You couldnt make this up. Chez hands his arse to Fredbob... Good one. Maybe after you've finished using yours as a mouthpieces we can get back onto something that makes sense.

You don't buy into that surely do you? It reads to me that you're trying to convince yourself of this in order to convince yourself that the set-up/system/structure Ashley put in place is the right thing for the club and if that really is the case you've lost it mate. Seriously. that is the case with a lot of people. Keegan walked out in 1997 because he couldn't work under a new structure...a structure which you keep defending to the hilt non-stop under Shepherd which did bring a relative amount of success. you won't find a post by me defending the club going PLC Apology accepted. But you do defend Shepherd, and Keegan walked out first time not long after he took over as Chairman iirc, because of what was happening with the club. After a pretty average first few seasons, Shepherd started to get it right and we had a bit of success. Who's to say if Keegan hadn't stuck it out for a bit back then, that he couldn't have got us back to where we were when Hall was in sole charge? Same criteria applies for today. Who's idea was it to go PLC ? Who had the power to make such a decision ? I don't think it was Shepherd, but in the context of it being a board thing [which is what I've always said] then you would have to say they all did it, but such a decision isn't a footballing one so it was even more unlikely to be a minor shareholder all on his own. The wheels to go PLC were in motion before Shepherd became chairman, but I'm not arguing about the merits of whoever was chairman and I never have. One thing you need to be successful, more than anything else, is to back your manager, and this is why I've stuck with the old board, whoever the chairman is. Do you mean 'back the manager financially' , 'back the manager's judgement' or both? and when happens when the boards judgement is seen to be crap ? so how many clubs can appoint winning managers ? Surely a "big club" with big ambitions who are always competing to get the best players out there should have no problems appointing a competent manager at worst?

You've explained how it could help us, which again you didn't have to explain because I know all that. I simply offered that becoming a PLC didn't really help the club in terms of the end result and it is that in which I was knocking, and not the virtues of being a PLC. You're arguing a point I wasn't making. How about arguing against the point I was and that is becoming a PLC didn't help the club (not that it wouldn't or couldn't). You keep spinning your patronising s**** though, I'm sure it will impress someone. Oh look, Fredbob's impressed You couldnt make this up.

is the biggest pile of turd you have written for a while. It created capital via equity as opposed to via debt which is, according to all the financial experts on here, a fearsome burden for any club to carry and should be avoided like the plague. Thats what the IPO was about. Ironic in many ways you're using the IPO to justify behaviour. HTT getting his arse handed to him...

At least fredbob is trying to put up some kind of argument, misguided though it may be. But as I guess you want Ashley to sell up to anyone, I'm not sure why you're sticking up for him. I think I'm playing a part in swaying some peoples opinions - too late i know but....

I'll agree with you there - the transfer activity WASNT good enough - im not an idiot im happy to acknowledge that - but i did see signs that he WAS looking to do the best for the club. However for his first season in football, I'm happy to give him the benefit of the doubt for one more season, its just a shame that alot of you dont want to. We still dont know how much this Keegan farce affected Ashley's transfer plans, no one knows any of the full details but alot of people are making judgments. "Only a fool would predict what's in the mist. " - Fredbob - October 2008 I would say the farcial club policy and unworkable management structure affected Keegans transfer plans. Theres snippets out there that would suggest that Keegan affected the clubs transfer plans by turning down targets he hadnt heard of. (which may of been down to the fact he'd been out the game for 3 years...) I personally have been happy with who we've signed so far. The numbers arent great but the quality is. Can you name the last time we had such a successful transfer period in terms of quality? Its right in front of peoples eyes.

But you seem to have lost complete faith in him now - but so far havent presented anything substantial to back these feelings up. Im not asking for you in particular to do so but its the same with a lot of people everyone has this definitive opinion but no one backs it up or takes in account the situation at the time. In my eyes the only thing that Ashley has done wrong so far that we can definitievly criticise him for is for not doing his research on the club and appointing Keegan.

If there was a genuine intention to replace Milner with either of those players then why was the sale of Milner rushed through (so that he could play for one of our supposed rivals while we were short on numbers) before we were sure they would sign? Milner's replacement is and was always intended to be a 26 year old loanee who noone had heard of because he's only ever played 5 games in Europe. I'm willing to bet none of our brilliant new recruitment team had even seen him play. But hey, it was a great deal Its a good question, and quite frankly i dont know enough to say what happened either way - i can only speculate as you are doing. Difference is i wont state it as fact, Im very confident that Nacho is a central attacking midfielder, so the idea he was a replacement for Milner is rubbish. I will say however that there were strong rumours of Shweinstiger, the full intracacies of the transfer i dont know so i couldnt speculate. Its another thing i'd like to hear about before i make this "Ashley out" judgment.

Why? because they will have loads of money probably. Mike Ashley's got plenty of money. Ambani's got a hell of a lot more. So? Well having plenty of cash has had a fair bit to do with Abramovich turning Chelsea into a force, and I would imagine it had something to do with City buying Robinho. I assume we don't want another owner like Ashley who will be unwilling to spend big. I'm not all that arsed about Abramovich/City-style spending tbh. I want someone who's in between Ashley and those lot IMO, someone who believes in organic growth and building on a solid base but at the same time not unwilling to spend to back the manager if required. Wishful thinking perhaps, but I hope for someone like Randy Lerner. He's worth less than Ashley from a quick peek at Wikipedia btw. Hate to bring this up but even Lerner took a season before spending big in the transfer market, his initial two transfer windows were pretty tame. Not unlike Ashley's. Keith Harris also praised Lerner for not saddling the club with debt (sound familiar?) and investing his own money. The key difference seems to be that Lerner was prepared to back O'Neill's judgement, whereas Ashley preferred Wise/Jiminez's choices. I wouldn't call 10m after six months for Ashley Young tame tbh. I wouldnt call £10m for Collocinni tame either.... and 12m for Milner just about covered it. So much for being a big club. fredbob, I think you are OK mate, but its about time you realised that big clubs are supposed to sign these players withouth having to sell other players to accomodate them. You are supposed to build quality, not replace one for one. This is in fact the policy followed by 2nd rate clubs that people have harped on about for ages, saying that we should be like them because pompey won the FA Cup and Blackburn won the League Cup. The fact is, about 60 clubs in the country are run like this, and these 2 clubs are top of these clubs, whereas NUFC used to be run like this too and were raised above it and have achieved consistently high league placings and regular european football as a result. I'm trying to explain this here. Nobody can guarantee success, you can only set out to strive for it. And NUFC have to behave bigger than clubs like this. Another fact is that Keegan and Bobby Robson also bought expensive defenders, but also bought forwards and qualified for europe, so whats the big deal ? Would you turn down £12 m for Milner? as has been said, look at the overall spend and look at the fact that they didn't even allow their own manager the money to replace him, in fact they replaced him with a player he didn't even want for half the money. Now, THAT my friend, is straight back to the days of McKeag, Westwood etc.....right back to it. Take my word for it. No wonder Keegan walked out. That wasnt the question - the question is would you turn down £12m for milner, do you think Keegan would of turned down £12m for Milner? Im not defending the amount he spent this window - its almost indefendable but i am defending his intentions becasue i did see enough evidence to suggest that he was looking to spend - how much this Keegan farce being a contributory factor to the lack of acivity this summer is something we just dont know yet people are choosing to ignore this and also ignore certain other snippets of evidence SUCH as the transfer record in order to pursue there personal conspiracy theories. Personally - because unlike some people I won't ignore obvious questions - I would take it. But I would expect that in the overall picture would be that I would be given that very money to spend as I please, and also as manager as one of the biggest clubs in the country, more as well as that. In fact, a club that is really a big club, would get the replacement through the door first. Keegan didn't get it, so he's gone. You can't dispute it fredbob, this is why he's gone, and its all because they didn;t have the ambition or trust, or both, in their own appointed manager. Clubs that apply this philosophy willl get nowhere and it just isn't good enough for NUFC Fair enough Id like to point out though that there are countless examples of managers not getting funds from sales, some in the very recent past involving some very key players. Its another point that we still dont know the clubs intentions with the Milner money, ive heard McGeady ive heard Schweinstiger both tenious due to the outcome so its something i cant comment on too much - i certainly wont say that they had full intention to inest the oney back in, just like i wont say they had no intention of investing the money back in becasue quite frankly, i just dont know. Ill just chose to use the evidence i see and the evidence i dont see i'll state as guesswork.

I'll agree with you there - the transfer activity WASNT good enough - im not an idiot im happy to acknowledge that - but i did see signs that he WAS looking to do the best for the club. However for his first season in football, I'm happy to give him the benefit of the doubt for one more season, its just a shame that alot of you dont want to. We still dont know how much this Keegan farce affected Ashley's transfer plans, no one knows any of the full details but alot of people are making judgments. "Only a fool would predict what's in the mist. " - Fredbob - October 2008

So you know that he had no intention of spending? Serious question bytheway becasue I've heard alot of of people stating Ashley's intentions and his real agenda but none seem keen to share any "inside information" that they know i dont, with me., or with anyone for that matter. Does anyone know how what was going on with KEegan affected his transfer plans? How many players did Keegan turn etc etc...? Im seriously keen on knowing becasue it seems to me that ALOT of people are basing DEFINITIVe opinions on the absolute bare minimum. As for the squad being s*** - i dont get it, was it s*** when we were drawing at old trafford? We have a good squad - we need a good manager to put things back on track. We are short of numbers and NO ONE outside the club knows the reason for this - but for some reason, seemingly logical and articultaed people are losing their minds over this. He's shown absolutely no evidence of being willing to spend has he? Either with the manager he inherited or the one he appointed. Why have we spent so little under him? I dunno - a club record fee for a defender seems like a bit of evidence to me. I know Milner's sale came after that but again I ask you do you have evidence to to suggest that those transfers was mutually dependant - especially with the rumours of Schweinstiger being lined up after Milner...and beside would you turn down £12m for Milner? He could easily of gone down the Bassong route if his agenda's was so corrupt and he had no intention of spending. We still dont know what happned with Modric either...the evidence is definitely there - more evidence than there is to suggest he was only in it to screw us over... Where did I say he was only in it to screw us over? Ok the sentiments the same - he wasnt in it for the good of the club, would that be more accurate of your feelings? (i.e not buying the club for fun more of a business exercise with the intentions solely of making money out of us)

Why? because they will have loads of money probably. Mike Ashley's got plenty of money. Ambani's got a hell of a lot more. So? Well having plenty of cash has had a fair bit to do with Abramovich turning Chelsea into a force, and I would imagine it had something to do with City buying Robinho. I assume we don't want another owner like Ashley who will be unwilling to spend big. I'm not all that arsed about Abramovich/City-style spending tbh. I want someone who's in between Ashley and those lot IMO, someone who believes in organic growth and building on a solid base but at the same time not unwilling to spend to back the manager if required. Wishful thinking perhaps, but I hope for someone like Randy Lerner. He's worth less than Ashley from a quick peek at Wikipedia btw. Hate to bring this up but even Lerner took a season before spending big in the transfer market, his initial two transfer windows were pretty tame. Not unlike Ashley's. Keith Harris also praised Lerner for not saddling the club with debt (sound familiar?) and investing his own money. The key difference seems to be that Lerner was prepared to back O'Neill's judgement, whereas Ashley preferred Wise/Jiminez's choices. I wouldn't call 10m after six months for Ashley Young tame tbh. I wouldnt call £10m for Collocinni tame either.... and 12m for Milner just about covered it. So much for being a big club. fredbob, I think you are OK mate, but its about time you realised that big clubs are supposed to sign these players withouth having to sell other players to accomodate them. You are supposed to build quality, not replace one for one. This is in fact the policy followed by 2nd rate clubs that people have harped on about for ages, saying that we should be like them because pompey won the FA Cup and Blackburn won the League Cup. The fact is, about 60 clubs in the country are run like this, and these 2 clubs are top of these clubs, whereas NUFC used to be run like this too and were raised above it and have achieved consistently high league placings and regular european football as a result. I'm trying to explain this here. Nobody can guarantee success, you can only set out to strive for it. And NUFC have to behave bigger than clubs like this. Another fact is that Keegan and Bobby Robson also bought expensive defenders, but also bought forwards and qualified for europe, so whats the big deal ? Would you turn down £12 m for Milner? as has been said, look at the overall spend and look at the fact that they didn't even allow their own manager the money to replace him, in fact they replaced him with a player he didn't even want for half the money. Now, THAT my friend, is straight back to the days of McKeag, Westwood etc.....right back to it. Take my word for it. No wonder Keegan walked out. That wasnt the question - the question is would you turn down £12m for milner, do you think Keegan would of turned down £12m for Milner? Im not defending the amount he spent this window - its almost indefendable but i am defending his intentions becasue i did see enough evidence to suggest that he was looking to spend - how much this Keegan farce being a contributory factor to the lack of acivity this summer is something we just dont know yet people are choosing to ignore this and also ignore certain other snippets of evidence SUCH as the transfer record in order to pursue there personal conspiracy theories.

Why? because they will have loads of money probably. Mike Ashley's got plenty of money. Ambani's got a hell of a lot more. So? Well having plenty of cash has had a fair bit to do with Abramovich turning Chelsea into a force, and I would imagine it had something to do with City buying Robinho. I assume we don't want another owner like Ashley who will be unwilling to spend big. I'm not all that arsed about Abramovich/City-style spending tbh. I want someone who's in between Ashley and those lot IMO, someone who believes in organic growth and building on a solid base but at the same time not unwilling to spend to back the manager if required. Wishful thinking perhaps, but I hope for someone like Randy Lerner. He's worth less than Ashley from a quick peek at Wikipedia btw. Hate to bring this up but even Lerner took a season before spending big in the transfer market, his initial two transfer windows were pretty tame. Not unlike Ashley's. Keith Harris also praised Lerner for not saddling the club with debt (sound familiar?) and investing his own money. The key difference seems to be that Lerner was prepared to back O'Neill's judgement, whereas Ashley preferred Wise/Jiminez's choices. I wouldn't call 10m after six months for Ashley Young tame tbh. I wouldnt call £10m for Collocinni tame either.... and 12m for Milner just about covered it. So much for being a big club. fredbob, I think you are OK mate, but its about time you realised that big clubs are supposed to sign these players withouth having to sell other players to accomodate them. You are supposed to build quality, not replace one for one. This is in fact the policy followed by 2nd rate clubs that people have harped on about for ages, saying that we should be like them because pompey won the FA Cup and Blackburn won the League Cup. The fact is, about 60 clubs in the country are run like this, and these 2 clubs are top of these clubs, whereas NUFC used to be run like this too and were raised above it and have achieved consistently high league placings and regular european football as a result. I'm trying to explain this here. Nobody can guarantee success, you can only set out to strive for it. And NUFC have to behave bigger than clubs like this. Another fact is that Keegan and Bobby Robson also bought expensive defenders, but also bought forwards and qualified for europe, so whats the big deal ? Would you turn down £12 m for Milner?

So you know that he had no intention of spending? Serious question bytheway becasue I've heard alot of of people stating Ashley's intentions and his real agenda but none seem keen to share any "inside information" that they know i dont, with me., or with anyone for that matter. Does anyone know how what was going on with KEegan affected his transfer plans? How many players did Keegan turn etc etc...? Im seriously keen on knowing becasue it seems to me that ALOT of people are basing DEFINITIVe opinions on the absolute bare minimum. As for the squad being s*** - i dont get it, was it s*** when we were drawing at old trafford? We have a good squad - we need a good manager to put things back on track. We are short of numbers and NO ONE outside the club knows the reason for this - but for some reason, seemingly logical and articultaed people are losing their minds over this. He's shown absolutely no evidence of being willing to spend has he? Either with the manager he inherited or the one he appointed. Why have we spent so little under him? I dunno - a club record fee for a defender seems like a bit of evidence to me. I know Milner's sale came after that but again I ask you do you have evidence to to suggest that those transfers was mutually dependant - especially with the rumours of Schweinstiger being lined up after Milner...and beside would you turn down £12m for Milner? He could easily of gone down the Bassong route if his agenda's was so corrupt and he had no intention of spending. We still dont know what happned with Modric either...the evidence is definitely there - more evidence than there is to suggest he was only in it to screw us over...

Why? because they will have loads of money probably. Mike Ashley's got plenty of money. Ambani's got a hell of a lot more. So? Well having plenty of cash has had a fair bit to do with Abramovich turning Chelsea into a force, and I would imagine it had something to do with City buying Robinho. I assume we don't want another owner like Ashley who will be unwilling to spend big. I'm not all that arsed about Abramovich/City-style spending tbh. I want someone who's in between Ashley and those lot IMO, someone who believes in organic growth and building on a solid base but at the same time not unwilling to spend to back the manager if required. Wishful thinking perhaps, but I hope for someone like Randy Lerner. He's worth less than Ashley from a quick peek at Wikipedia btw. Hate to bring this up but even Lerner took a season before spending big in the transfer market, his initial two transfer windows were pretty tame. Not unlike Ashley's. Keith Harris also praised Lerner for not saddling the club with debt (sound familiar?) and investing his own money. The key difference seems to be that Lerner was prepared to back O'Neill's judgement, whereas Ashley preferred Wise/Jiminez's choices. I wouldn't call 10m after six months for Ashley Young tame tbh. I wouldnt call £10m for Collocinni tame either....