fredbob

aye, ie planning, which he didn't do, apparently Are you for real?? The new board are lambasted for not signing players from "poxy clubs like Blackburn" but the old board arent lambasted for not being able to sell nufc to managers from 'poxy clubs likes Bolton" Also, what kind of a plan is it employ a manager you know you will sack? Thats a joke NE5, you know it. suppose thats a novel way of looking at it ! Well are you saying Shepherd was looking at Roeder for the long term? Are you saying he saw Roeder get us back into the CL?

aye, ie planning, which he didn't do, apparently Are you for real?? The new board are lambasted for not signing players from "poxy clubs like Blackburn" but the old board arent lambasted for not being able to sell nufc to managers from 'poxy clubs likes Bolton" Also, what kind of a plan is it employ a manager you know you will sack? Thats a joke NE5, you know it.

Was that before of after Souness was denied the significantly lower funds to purchase his number one striker Anelka... I don't want to get into this debate, but Owen was a trophy signing, to appease fans, to put bums on seats. No doubt Souness said aye to the idea of signing Owen, but the way I remember it he wanted Anelka first and we could have had him for £10m quid. The whole grande hotel business with Sky cameras poking out of the sky was all staged managed and need I say more about the official unveiling. Owen was also a panic signing, we'd started the season goaless as you said which only helped us come to the eventual fee we paid for him, way over the top. Some £6m more than what Anelka would have went for and double what Liverpool had offered for Owen. If Owen this proven goalscorer was a necessity, what was Anelka this proving goalscorer? Spin it all you like, there is no denying what kind of signing Owen was. All players are bought to put bums on seats. Souness said himself that he handed Shepherd a piece of paper with Owens name on it as the player he would most like to sign. I don't understand why people have a problem with signing a player of the calibre of Micheal Owen. Staggering. My problem with Owen's signing wasn't even about the whole fan appeasement thing, but about spending all that money on an injury prone player who didn't want to be here and the manner in which we went about it, i.e. doubling what Liverpool had offered for a player who last resort would only really sign for us on loan to preserve his England place, that was before Madrid laughed their arses off when we just hit them with £16m who they were quite prepared to let out on loan never mind selling. That and the fact we could have had Anelka for much cheaper, Souness' first choice who actually wanted to come. I remember myself and Wullie getting lots of stick for our views on the Owen signing, but like him I still stand by my comments he was a waste of money and while you could argue he was the right kind of player in terms of pedigree, name, quality etc., he was signed at the wrong time by the wrong set of people by the wrong kind of club, a club that needed to spend whatever money it had a hell of a lot more wisely, our subsequent debt levels showed that. Anyway, all under the bridge, he's playing well and if KK wants to keep him I back that decision all the way despite my personal feelings that we should still cut our losses. well, that wasn't what Souness said , unless he's a liar. Oh, wait a moment ............ Anelka was the one player Souness had tried to sign long before we showed any interest in Owen so he must have been pretty high up on his wishlist. And if Fenerbache are to be believed, the player's agent and Anelka himself, we'd been in touch and had offered what was considered a derisory offer by Fenerbache. I know Souness was angry about that because he said so live on TV in the buildup to our away match against Deportivo that sparked a huge thread on here debating whether FS was undermining his manager and just why, we weren't prepaired to meet their evaluation of a player the manager wanted which of course, become even more fishy when we then went and spent far more on Owen. I remember that, they spoke to Souness in the airport about it and he kept saying "You'd better ask the chairman" and that "I know the lads desperate to come here" Probably lying though, the chairmans never had a precedent of undermining his managers.

See my issue with the appointment of Roeder was that i couldnt see the point of it, the general consensus with that appointment that that he could possibly get us into the top half and stabilize us as a club. Why didnt we make an effort to get a manager who's had the ability to get us where we hoped to be in the end rather than a manager we knew who wouldnt get us where we wantedto be... It just didnt make sense in my head, it was an appointment which had a definite shelf life which meant we would need a new manager in the forseeable future again.

I simply don't think it's necassary. Enrique could very well be excellent if we just stick with him. The team's hardly going to drastically improve if we sign a better left-back. So what is Keegan going to do, is he looking for a player to compete/replace Enrique or is he going to be actively looking to someone with quality but is happy with the bench?

Sounds like a stupid question but would people care if we got a better albeit older LB which forced Enrique out the team?

Hence why i said "potential"? This is a speculation thread isnt it?

Who Ronaldihno? They havent agreed a transfer fee and Man City have 'confirmed' that they have had talks with his brother etc, nothing set in stone yet.

In light of the potential transfer of Ronaldihno to Man City, woud anyone go for Elano, he's seems to have goneoff the boil alittle but that could be down to being played out posiiton (in his words)?? I think it'd be worth a go, not exactly unrealistic either and a position we need to fill as well....

oh dear. 400m. I don;t know I'm not Chris Mort or Mike Ashley !!! What a question howay mate, keep it sensible It must be a good question because you refuse to answer it what don't you understand about "how am I supposed to know" You dont know how to give a good estimate of the clubs ambition? yes I do, but I haven't seen the right awareness from the chairman yet, quite the opposite in fact Whats that got to do with your estimate? In fact, if you dont think you've seen the "right awareness from the chairman", then your estimate must be pretty low....meaning you dont think the new boad will show much ambition? Yes? Is that right? I'll put my Captain Obvious hat on here and have a guess that you dont want to estimate because it will then contradict all your "foresight" and "superior knowledge" you have of the club having been a fan for over 100 years and witnessing some "real s*** boards". Thats pretty sad that you cant admit this. you are thompers without the death threats I am thompers without the death threat?? What are you on about? Got to say thats one of the best diversions ive seen from you in a while. I just dont understand why you dont answer the question, do you actually have something to lose from it?

With Ashley having put in so much money when maybe it wasnt SO neccessary in clearing the debts, i think its a safe be that he'll at least match the amount he put into debt management, transfer funding is an absolute priority in running a club and he'll know that. So i think he'll put in about £40m minimum.

oh dear. 400m. I don;t know I'm not Chris Mort or Mike Ashley !!! What a question howay mate, keep it sensible It must be a good question because you refuse to answer it what don't you understand about "how am I supposed to know" You dont know how to give a good estimate of the clubs ambition? yes I do, but I haven't seen the right awareness from the chairman yet, quite the opposite in fact Whats that got to do with your estimate? In fact, if you dont think you've seen the "right awareness from the chairman", then your estimate must be pretty low....meaning you dont think the new boad will show much ambition? Yes? Is that right? I'll put my Captain Obvious hat on here and have a guess that you dont want to estimate because it will then contradict all your "foresight" and "superior knowledge" you have of the club having been a fan for over 100 years and witnessing some "real shit boards". Thats pretty sad that you cant admit this.

oh dear. 400m. I don;t know I'm not Chris Mort or Mike Ashley !!! What a question howay mate, keep it sensible It must be a good question because you refuse to answer it what don't you understand about "how am I supposed to know" You dont know how to give a good estimate of the clubs ambition?

No place for him in a 4-3-3. And it looks like when we switch to 4-4-2 then Duff is the favoured option, possibly because Zog is proving to be a huffy bugger. Could we not scrap Geremi and bring in Zoggy? Geremi seems to me to be the weakest link in the mid. who's gonna get the assists then? Geremi had a few the last weeks.. Also with 3 in midfield its pretty imperative that things are kept simple and we DONT lose the ball. Zog hasnt got that in his game, he loses the ball alot.

Bingo. KK will get as much as he requires which will come in the shape of significant funds. As for Mort, he's the typical cautious chairman, but it's Ashley who has final say and I guarantee he will back his man with cash and lots of it. Be happy people, we're ganning places. It did strike me as ironic if not downright hypocritical to accuse the old board of doing things to appease the fans after pulling the biggest crowd pleasing stunt since we signed Shearer. To the outside world the appointment looked exactly like the managerial equivalent of signing a past-it big name player out for one last payday (they're wrong like). Good point, to be honest it struck me as a crowd pleaser as well, more in the sense that Keegan, Shearer or an absolute owrld class appointment would be the only appointment which would appease the fans.

£16m, £110k and a £8m(?) transfer clause were all too much for aplayer who had barely played for his previous team, again you reiterated to point we're trying to make in this entire thread, it was the name we were primarily buying not the player. Owen hadnt started that much but had a good goals to game ratio at Madrid. Still didnt warrant the mark up he got in my opinion, fair point about the longer contract, but i still dont think that there should of been a 100% mark up on his initial sign fee, espcially with so few appearences. My point also, is that you look at the other figures tied in with this transfer, such as the clause and the silly wages, and you see the desperation NOT determination to sign him, and that speaks volumes to me.

That's the last one I could come up with that fitted the criteria you all seem to be assuming he means. He only cost £100,000 like. Duff, Owen, Luque, Boumsong, Rooney bid, Torres supposed bid, Casino plans, all things which arguably were signed to get season ticket sales going again, again there were questionalbe motives for most of those players, wouldnt go as far as saying they were all "statement signings" but maybe signings made with not he 1st teams best interests at heart.... Can't see many people rushing to renew their season tickets just because we bought Duff. When we bought Luque we'd already got Owen so they'd done enough to get the money in anyway if that was their only motive. Boumsong was a necessary (if over priced) signing who most were happy with at the time. Would you have turned your nose up at getting Torres and Rooney? Where the casino comes into it I've no idea. How could you possibly know that? All im saying, and i think you kindof agree to an extent, is that maybe they werent signings made with the best interest of the first team at heart, especially the Souness debacle when it was clear to everyone that season ticket sales were at there lowest, maybe he needed to stir up interest by going on the spree. Hell even Solano was resigned for the fans. It seemed that way too me, if you think that those signings or (attempted signings) were made 100% for the benefit of the fisrt team and only for the benefit of the fisrt team then that is upto you, ill take the cynical route i stick with my belief that maybe, just maybe they werent just signed for the benefit of the first team, but for the benefit of the finances and season ticket sales. To me the evidence during SBR final seasons suggest it, no money during summer, SBR wanting a CB (having sold one of our best ever), then when seaon ticket sales start to drop we find £25m from somewhere to bid on Torres and Rooney....theres my evidence and thats maybe what Mort is on about. Maybe im wrong.

oh dear. 400m. I don;t know I'm not Chris Mort or Mike Ashley !!! What a question howay mate, keep it sensible Its not hard to give an estimate....you said it yourself spending money=ambition, therefore more money, more ambition- true?? So do you think we'll outspend our previous high of £50m do you think we'll go less or higher? A rough estimate on the level of ambition you think the board will show is all we're asking for...

£16m, £110k and a £8m(?) transfer clause were all too much for aplayer who had barely played for his previous team, again you reiterated to point we're trying to make in this entire thread, it was the name we were primarily buying not the player.

That's the last one I could come up with that fitted the criteria you all seem to be assuming he means. He only cost £100,000 like. Duff, Owen, Luque, Boumsong, Rooney bid, Torres supposed bid, Casino plans, all things which arguably were signed to get season ticket sales going again, again there were questionalbe motives for most of those players, wouldnt go as far as saying they were all "statement signings" but maybe signings made with not he 1st teams best interests at heart....

its quite clear mate, the club simply can't rule out buying the top players at any time, ever, if they have genuine ambition and want to fulfill it. So you dont think we'll outspend our rivals and we'll operate on a "sell to buy" policy? Because if you don't think we'll do the above then what the hell are you arguing about? If you think we'll back Keegan to the fullest and we'll look to sign the claibre of player he's after then really there is absolutely no argument to be had. Full Stop.

Sodo you think Keegan will get suffiecient bcking this summer and do you think he'll get the standard of player he'd after? Simple yes or no answer.

So just to re iterate- you dont think we'll outspend our rivals and we'll be operating on a "sell to buy policy"? Is that right? Put your head on the line NE5...

As was Bentley......

I don't agree Morts comments are sensible. I think they smack of total naivety, If the club needs players for the present time, they need them, which we do, and the better the quality, so much the better. This is where I came in and all I said in fact. Disagree - he is quite correct not to want signings just to appease supporters ; we used to do that even in Joe Harvey's time.. The signings have to be those that make us a BETTER SIDE - nothing more, nothing less ; if they turn out to be headline-making signings. all well and good, but Robert Lee was hardly that at the time he signed for us, yet became one of our most invaluable signings. If you put this point to KK, I'm willing to bet he will agree, and that is the most important thing...I think we can all be fairly sure that the Manager will be the one to finally decide who he wants.. I'm pleased to see that you appear to think the trophy winning clubs aren't showing you how they appease their supporters ie by buying top quality footballers to their clubs. Just carry on ignoring it if you like. He appears to be making an excuse for setting out a "sell to buy" type strategy in the long term with stringent limits on the amount the club is prepared to spend on players, ie run the club like Everton rather than Liverpool. I'm sorry if you and others don't agree, but thats what it seems to me, and I've seen it before and heard these sort of excuses, unlike most others. Its not the way to run an ambitious football club, the only way to success is to buy the quality players when they are available and worry about balancing the books later. Why does he have to keep feeling he has to earn himself brownie points by digging at the old board, as UV has said ? Is it to curry favour with supporters - ie appease them ? Just get on with the job, and the good club that you have been left, and improve it if you can, is what he should be doing. I'd think more of him if he acknowledged that they have been left a club very much in a good position to get real success instead of the childish digs. Keegan will do well with the money he gets, but will we get the full potential out of Keegan ? So put your neck out on the line and give us a rough estimate on how much we'll spend? Do you think we will spend little, lots or average? Seeing as though youve seen it all before you should have a rough estimate... personally i think we will spend about £40m and we will sell some fringe players and Zog, noone else. I'm not even looking at this summer. I'm not interested in the club throwing out sweeteners to fans in the first summer under KK [to appease them ?] I'm far more interested in the club showing me they intend to get into the top trophy winning clubs and showing me that they understand how its done. By this, I mean buying the best players from poxy little clubs like Blackburn. We need an initial injection to move upwards that needs to be spent well, but believe it or not the mackems are also talking of spending 40m quid. Do you think we ought to be acting bigger than the mackems ? Or do you think the mackems should be big hitters like us ? So how much? I've just said, I'm not looking for an amount of money, but an awareness of what it takes and sadly I think what he has said is complete rubbish. You're a walking paradox man, you say it yourself thatthe onyl thing a board can do is chose the right manager and back him, well they've done one thing so far and now when it comes down to doing the next thing, its classifed as "sweeteners for the fans" Well do you think we'll spend lots?