Shays Given Tim Flowers

We'll cross that bridge when we get to it. Why not do the same for when the season doesn't match expectations? The season will match expectations Seriously positive and negative shouldn't be in an equal balance on this board. There is far more to be negative about the club and the likely prognosis for this season than there is to be positive. That's just common sense. We were by and large terrible all of last season and nearly relegated. The major change of the summer was the appointment of JFK as DOF. I'm not saying there aren't things to be positive about by the way.

He's said or inferred nothing of the sort.. What?English is not my mother tongue. Did I f*** up? You meant imply, where somebody suggests something without specifically stating it. To infer is to draw or conclude based on the information at hand. So the reader would infer from Pardew's comments rather than Pardew inferring it in his words.

We'll cross that bridge when we get to it.

He's said or inferred nothing of the sort..

Fucking Egg in a bun.

:thup: Remember when we didn't win away from home for ages? Remember when it was said we couldn't come back from a losing position to win a game? Pardew's mythbusters. I can't wait for football to come back.

Wow, three goals does mean creating 3 chances you know. Dude, we made Motherwell look ordinary. Sometimes the crazy has to go the other way with NUFC.

Let's have this Sovereign State 2-3

Racist.

He might not be a better finisher than Chopra but he is a better footballer.

http://i.radikal.com.tr/480x325/2012/10/22/fft64_mf1173882.Jpeg David Moyes http://cdn3.whatculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/David-Moyes.jpg E.T.

The expertise point is definitely valid, Kinnear and (to a lesser extent) Pardew are bad appointments. Saying that, I'm not sure the point about finance is that good, because if we speculated in the market more we might end up with more players on long contracts that we can't get rid of. Somewhat of a leap of faith, where have I said speculate in the market more, unless you mean buying more players? What has the length of contract got to do with anything. Surely that's contingent on other things. I wasn't arguing with you, I was just exploring the point about a different kind of owner. Reminded me of this http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/nn2_4768_M4/mqdefault.jpg "I'm not having a go at anyone, I'm having a pop at the undead"

The expertise point is definitely valid, Kinnear and (to a lesser extent) Pardew are bad appointments. Saying that, I'm not sure the point about finance is that good, because if we speculated in the market more we might end up with more players on long contracts that we can't get rid of. Somewhat of a leap of faith, where have I said speculate in the market more, unless you mean buying more players? What has the length of contract got to do with anything. Surely that's contingent on other things.

And this is arguably in the wrong thread but since we are focusing on Ashley etc We paid to cancel Nile Ranger's contract, we paid to cancel Xisco's contract. If we had an owner who paid a bit more attention (gave a s***) and appointed better people maybe this sort of s**** would'nt happen. Maybe then we could grease the wheels with Gomis. And not be an injury away from Gutierrez/Ameobi

go back to the Bobby Robson quote about the club. Nobody made Ashley buy us. Nobody said don't do due diligence or it won't be a good investment. But he can get to f*** if he thinks owning something that thousands of people are emotionally attached, and invested in does not bring with it a level of responsibility. He may be the owner but its more akin to an invasion. We shouldn't toe his line just because he had the money to purchase our club. I do agree with this to a certain extent, he has a responsibility to the club and the city. But how far that stretches in terms of practical things like player purchases is quite hard to say. As for Dave's post, nobody will be surprised I disagree with that. I don't see how you can possibly analyse the club's position and the players we can or can't buy unless you have an interest in the financial side. Otherwise you'd just be clamouring for us to sign everyone and wondering why we aren't competing with Man City. It's just part of modern football sadly. Never mind on a practical level. We as fans have got every right to be angry about it. You're equating money to ambition in your reading of Dave's post. Dave is saying finance is used as a defence to our lack of ambition. We could be a lot more ambitious without spending a kings ransom. Well in that case I agree, we should be ambitious. But in practical terms doesn't that depend on how much we can afford to spend? Arguably we do come down on the stingy side of sensible, but that's another discussion about money. Pardew is our Manager Kinnear is our Director of Football. I think we have the money available to make more ambitious appointments than this.

go back to the Bobby Robson quote about the club. Nobody made Ashley buy us. Nobody said don't do due diligence or it won't be a good investment. But he can get to f*** if he thinks owning something that thousands of people are emotionally attached, and invested in does not bring with it a level of responsibility. He may be the owner but its more akin to an invasion. We shouldn't toe his line just because he had the money to purchase our club. That first line always does my head in. Can only imagine what the alternative to Ashley buying Shepherd & Hall out of the s**** would have been, but I'd imagine things would be far worse than they are now. That's not sticking up for Ashley because he should still be doing more. That was 6 years ago.

go back to the Bobby Robson quote about the club. Nobody made Ashley buy us. Nobody said don't do due diligence or it won't be a good investment. But he can get to f*** if he thinks owning something that thousands of people are emotionally attached, and invested in does not bring with it a level of responsibility. He may be the owner but its more akin to an invasion. We shouldn't toe his line just because he had the money to purchase our club. I do agree with this to a certain extent, he has a responsibility to the club and the city. But how far that stretches in terms of practical things like player purchases is quite hard to say. As for Dave's post, nobody will be surprised I disagree with that. I don't see how you can possibly analyse the club's position and the players we can or can't buy unless you have an interest in the financial side. Otherwise you'd just be clamouring for us to sign everyone and wondering why we aren't competing with Man City. It's just part of modern football sadly. Never mind on a practical level. We as fans have got every right to be angry about it. You're equating money to ambition in your reading of Dave's post. Dave is saying finance is used as a defence to our lack of ambition. We could be a lot more ambitious without spending a kings ransom.

This thread

go back to the Bobby Robson quote about the club. Nobody made Ashley buy us. Nobody said don't do due diligence or it won't be a good investment. But he can get to fuck if he thinks owning something that thousands of people are emotionally attached, and invested in does not bring with it a level of responsibility. He may be the owner but its more akin to an invasion. We shouldn't toe his line just because he had the money to purchase our club.

16 days apart.

As to whether we are rolling in Money I don't know. We are just about breaking even. The TV money is guaranteed what will become of it is anyone's guess.

We've been through it a million times before but it is clearly still is a bit of a head f***. Does giving a non asset (like Wullie says Carroll was) a new long term contract make any difference? Is he right that despite what the club accounts have shown, we are in fact, rolling in wonga? Its not that Carroll was a non-asset its just his value for accounting purposes was nominal as he had come through the youth system (i.e. no money paid). The difference the new contract made was that it actually reduced the asset value of Carroll as the contract is a liability. Net asset value = value of the asset minus liabilities. That covers the position in accounts. FWIW accounts ought not speculate as to the value of the assets they own, as they are supposed to be a realistic assesment of the actual monetary value of the company. From this assesment you can generally see how much liability the company can actually (not potentially cope with). Generally assets depreciate. The Value of the assets is determined by the cash that is paid for them and then usually depreciates on a year by year basis. Accounts is basically a series of rules that don't make a huge amount of sense to the lay person. They also don't really fit particularly well with highly fluctuating things like football clubs.

Hopefully he will rush himself back and make things worse. I know, I know

Ok. I think everybody wouldnt mind if Pardew turned it around. A point Ian W frequently makes is that he see's the positives in Pardew, indeed his posts are often positive about him. This is despite the fact he thinks he's a poor manager and ideally wouldn't be at the club. Why can't that logic work the other way?

I say loads of s**** tbh There's my point. I remembered it because I knew for a fact you'd change your tune as soon as the mood shifted again. did the mood shift towards pardew? what prompted that inochi? was it the inspiring draw with rangers, or when we made motherwell look ordinary? Nah, of course not. His original post saying Pardew had his support was much earlier in the summer. That was just the first one I could find, then I stopped looking. Around that time, a fair few people were making conciliatory posts, saying they hoped he could turn it around. Might have been around the time JFK was appointed, can't be sure. Just knew it'd go out of the window. You don't think people still cling to that hope?