Baggio Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 The old board showed absolutely loads of ambition, right from the moment SJH seized control. In fact I'd say it was a level of ambition that was pretty much unparralleled in British football until Ambramovich bought Chelsea. Problem was they didn't neccessarily go about achieving the ambition in the best way sometimes. There are a canny few things I'd level against the Sheperds and Halls but lack of ambition isn't one of them. I think you're missing the point, NE5 is questioning the ambition of Mike Ashley because he only gave Allardyce £11 million to spend net, ignoring the £100 million he wiped off the debt which a fair chunk of was borrowed to back Souness. Ambition isn't always a good thing when you can't afford it, just ask Peter Ridsdale. As for not signing a replacement for Boumsong or having to sell Milner to sign a striker, I said at the time Roeder didn't manage his budget properly when signing Duff which is exactly what I've said regarding the signing of Smith when a proper replacement for Dyer was needed. I'm not ignoring anything. I don't care about Ashley paying off the clubs debt, it went towards the cost of buying the club. If the club had been debt free, the value of the purchase of the club would have been massively more, so it cancels it out. How much is the club worth now it is debt free ? He'll get his money back if he sells it on, don't you worry about that. He's starting from scratch. If the board doesn't show ambition, it is no better than the old board and may not match it either. Why don't you and others stop looking at personalities - we know you don't like Shepherd and are allowing this to taint your judgement, and likewise have taken in the new boards PR - but at the end of the day, they have proved nothing yet. This is the truth. I realise it may not go down well with some of those who think the old board did nothing right and the new board can't do anything wrong, but time will tell, and so far, this is the truth. Ridsdale made mistakes, but he had the ambition and for that he kicked the arse out of wankers like our ex directors before the Halls and Shepherd, and other tossers like Bob Murray and quite a lot of other chairmen of other clubs too. A few years of real tossers running the club ie as in the vast majority of clubs we overtook while we were owned by the Halls and Shepherd - and you would sharp change your tune. It's sad that this thread has developed like this. If people accepted factual information, it wouldn't happen. Why has every thread got to be turned into a debate about the old board? Fuck me, you bore people to tears. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 Pretty much all of the players bought to save us in 91/92 and get up in 92/93 to be vague about it with Gavin Peacock at the top of that list. aye, Gavin, and David Kelly too as someone else has mentioned. Ardiles may not have been very good but he pulled one rabbit out of the hat when he signed Kelly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 The old board showed absolutely loads of ambition, right from the moment SJH seized control. In fact I'd say it was a level of ambition that was pretty much unparralleled in British football until Ambramovich bought Chelsea. Problem was they didn't neccessarily go about achieving the ambition in the best way sometimes. There are a canny few things I'd level against the Sheperds and Halls but lack of ambition isn't one of them. I think you're missing the point, NE5 is questioning the ambition of Mike Ashley because he only gave Allardyce £11 million to spend net, ignoring the £100 million he wiped off the debt which a fair chunk of was borrowed to back Souness. Ambition isn't always a good thing when you can't afford it, just ask Peter Ridsdale. As for not signing a replacement for Boumsong or having to sell Milner to sign a striker, I said at the time Roeder didn't manage his budget properly when signing Duff which is exactly what I've said regarding the signing of Smith when a proper replacement for Dyer was needed. I'm not ignoring anything. I don't care about Ashley paying off the clubs debt, it went towards the cost of buying the club. If the club had been debt free, the value of the purchase of the club would have been massively more, so it cancels it out. How much is the club worth now it is debt free ? He'll get his money back if he sells it on, don't you worry about that. He's starting from scratch. If the board doesn't show ambition, it is no better than the old board and may not match it either. Why don't you and others stop looking at personalities - we know you don't like Shepherd and are allowing this to taint your judgement, and likewise have taken in the new boards PR - but at the end of the day, they have proved nothing yet. This is the truth. I realise it may not go down well with some of those who think the old board did nothing right and the new board can't do anything wrong, but time will tell, and so far, this is the truth. Ridsdale made mistakes, but he had the ambition and for that he kicked the arse out of wankers like our ex directors before the Halls and Shepherd, and other tossers like Bob Murray and quite a lot of other chairmen of other clubs too. A few years of real tossers running the club ie as in the vast majority of clubs we overtook while we were owned by the Halls and Shepherd - and you would sharp change your tune. It's sad that this thread has developed like this. If people accepted factual information, it wouldn't happen. Why has every thread got to be turned into a debate about the old board? Fuck me, you bore people to tears. Like I said, if you chose to look at facts it wouldn't happen. Nice to see you think everyone is interested in the DOF bollocks you post all the time ...... And, I'm trying to move it on, as I said. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 The old board showed absolutely loads of ambition, right from the moment SJH seized control. In fact I'd say it was a level of ambition that was pretty much unparralleled in British football until Ambramovich bought Chelsea. Problem was they didn't neccessarily go about achieving the ambition in the best way sometimes. There are a canny few things I'd level against the Sheperds and Halls but lack of ambition isn't one of them. I think you're missing the point, NE5 is questioning the ambition of Mike Ashley because he only gave Allardyce £11 million to spend net, ignoring the £100 million he wiped off the debt which a fair chunk of was borrowed to back Souness. Ambition isn't always a good thing when you can't afford it, just ask Peter Ridsdale. As for not signing a replacement for Boumsong or having to sell Milner to sign a striker, I said at the time Roeder didn't manage his budget properly when signing Duff which is exactly what I've said regarding the signing of Smith when a proper replacement for Dyer was needed. I'm not ignoring anything. I don't care about Ashley paying off the clubs debt, it went towards the cost of buying the club. If the club had been debt free, the value of the purchase of the club would have been massively more, so it cancels it out. How much is the club worth now it is debt free ? He'll get his money back if he sells it on, don't you worry about that. He's starting from scratch. If the board doesn't show ambition, it is no better than the old board and may not match it either. Why don't you and others stop looking at personalities - we know you don't like Shepherd and are allowing this to taint your judgement, and likewise have taken in the new boards PR - but at the end of the day, they have proved nothing yet. This is the truth. I realise it may not go down well with some of those who think the old board did nothing right and the new board can't do anything wrong, but time will tell, and so far, this is the truth. Ridsdale made mistakes, but he had the ambition and for that he kicked the arse out of wankers like our ex directors before the Halls and Shepherd, and other tossers like Bob Murray and quite a lot of other chairmen of other clubs too. A few years of real tossers running the club ie as in the vast majority of clubs we overtook while we were owned by the Halls and Shepherd - and you would sharp change your tune. It's sad that this thread has developed like this. If people accepted factual information, it wouldn't happen. Why has every thread got to be turned into a debate about the old board? Fuck me, you bore people to tears. Like I said, if you chose to look at facts it wouldn't happen. Nice to see you think everyone is interested in the DOF bollocks you post all the time ...... And, I'm trying to move it on, as I said. Post all the time?! I post in threads people have made about it, unlike yourself who's been known to try and get a debate in general chat on to Shepherd. mackems.gif He's gone, get over it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 The old board showed absolutely loads of ambition, right from the moment SJH seized control. In fact I'd say it was a level of ambition that was pretty much unparralleled in British football until Ambramovich bought Chelsea. Problem was they didn't neccessarily go about achieving the ambition in the best way sometimes. There are a canny few things I'd level against the Sheperds and Halls but lack of ambition isn't one of them. I think you're missing the point, NE5 is questioning the ambition of Mike Ashley because he only gave Allardyce £11 million to spend net, ignoring the £100 million he wiped off the debt which a fair chunk of was borrowed to back Souness. Ambition isn't always a good thing when you can't afford it, just ask Peter Ridsdale. As for not signing a replacement for Boumsong or having to sell Milner to sign a striker, I said at the time Roeder didn't manage his budget properly when signing Duff which is exactly what I've said regarding the signing of Smith when a proper replacement for Dyer was needed. I'm not ignoring anything. I don't care about Ashley paying off the clubs debt, it went towards the cost of buying the club. If the club had been debt free, the value of the purchase of the club would have been massively more, so it cancels it out. How much is the club worth now it is debt free ? He'll get his money back if he sells it on, don't you worry about that. He's starting from scratch. If the board doesn't show ambition, it is no better than the old board and may not match it either. Why don't you and others stop looking at personalities - we know you don't like Shepherd and are allowing this to taint your judgement, and likewise have taken in the new boards PR - but at the end of the day, they have proved nothing yet. This is the truth. I realise it may not go down well with some of those who think the old board did nothing right and the new board can't do anything wrong, but time will tell, and so far, this is the truth. Ridsdale made mistakes, but he had the ambition and for that he kicked the arse out of wankers like our ex directors before the Halls and Shepherd, and other tossers like Bob Murray and quite a lot of other chairmen of other clubs too. A few years of real tossers running the club ie as in the vast majority of clubs we overtook while we were owned by the Halls and Shepherd - and you would sharp change your tune. It's sad that this thread has developed like this. If people accepted factual information, it wouldn't happen. Why has every thread got to be turned into a debate about the old board? Fuck me, you bore people to tears. Like I said, if you chose to look at facts it wouldn't happen. Nice to see you think everyone is interested in the DOF bollocks you post all the time ...... And, I'm trying to move it on, as I said. Post all the time?! I post in threads people have made about it, unlike yourself who's been known to try and get a debate in general chat on to Shepherd. mackems.gif He's gone, get over it. We haven't got a DOF, and the club who in your opinion have the perfect setup with one, are struggling. Get over it. BTW.........I don't start posts about the old board. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 The old board showed absolutely loads of ambition, right from the moment SJH seized control. In fact I'd say it was a level of ambition that was pretty much unparralleled in British football until Ambramovich bought Chelsea. Problem was they didn't neccessarily go about achieving the ambition in the best way sometimes. There are a canny few things I'd level against the Sheperds and Halls but lack of ambition isn't one of them. I think you're missing the point, NE5 is questioning the ambition of Mike Ashley because he only gave Allardyce £11 million to spend net, ignoring the £100 million he wiped off the debt which a fair chunk of was borrowed to back Souness. Ambition isn't always a good thing when you can't afford it, just ask Peter Ridsdale. As for not signing a replacement for Boumsong or having to sell Milner to sign a striker, I said at the time Roeder didn't manage his budget properly when signing Duff which is exactly what I've said regarding the signing of Smith when a proper replacement for Dyer was needed. I'm not ignoring anything. I don't care about Ashley paying off the clubs debt, it went towards the cost of buying the club. If the club had been debt free, the value of the purchase of the club would have been massively more, so it cancels it out. How much is the club worth now it is debt free ? He'll get his money back if he sells it on, don't you worry about that. He's starting from scratch. If the board doesn't show ambition, it is no better than the old board and may not match it either. Why don't you and others stop looking at personalities - we know you don't like Shepherd and are allowing this to taint your judgement, and likewise have taken in the new boards PR - but at the end of the day, they have proved nothing yet. This is the truth. I realise it may not go down well with some of those who think the old board did nothing right and the new board can't do anything wrong, but time will tell, and so far, this is the truth. Ridsdale made mistakes, but he had the ambition and for that he kicked the arse out of wankers like our ex directors before the Halls and Shepherd, and other tossers like Bob Murray and quite a lot of other chairmen of other clubs too. A few years of real tossers running the club ie as in the vast majority of clubs we overtook while we were owned by the Halls and Shepherd - and you would sharp change your tune. It's sad that this thread has developed like this. If people accepted factual information, it wouldn't happen. Why has every thread got to be turned into a debate about the old board? Fuck me, you bore people to tears. Like I said, if you chose to look at facts it wouldn't happen. Nice to see you think everyone is interested in the DOF bollocks you post all the time ...... And, I'm trying to move it on, as I said. Post all the time?! I post in threads people have made about it, unlike yourself who's been known to try and get a debate in general chat on to Shepherd. mackems.gif He's gone, get over it. We haven't got a DOF, and the club who in your opinion have the perfect setup with one, are struggling. Get over it. BTW.........I don't start posts about the old board. Good job you're not our DOF though, NE5. What with "Top Boss" Souness, Roeder who's in touch with the fans and the man you've always wanted in fat Sam. mackems.gif You couldn't have made 3 worse calls if you tried. mackems.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 The old board showed absolutely loads of ambition, right from the moment SJH seized control. In fact I'd say it was a level of ambition that was pretty much unparralleled in British football until Ambramovich bought Chelsea. Problem was they didn't neccessarily go about achieving the ambition in the best way sometimes. There are a canny few things I'd level against the Sheperds and Halls but lack of ambition isn't one of them. I think you're missing the point, NE5 is questioning the ambition of Mike Ashley because he only gave Allardyce £11 million to spend net, ignoring the £100 million he wiped off the debt which a fair chunk of was borrowed to back Souness. Ambition isn't always a good thing when you can't afford it, just ask Peter Ridsdale. As for not signing a replacement for Boumsong or having to sell Milner to sign a striker, I said at the time Roeder didn't manage his budget properly when signing Duff which is exactly what I've said regarding the signing of Smith when a proper replacement for Dyer was needed. I'm not ignoring anything. I don't care about Ashley paying off the clubs debt, it went towards the cost of buying the club. If the club had been debt free, the value of the purchase of the club would have been massively more, so it cancels it out. How much is the club worth now it is debt free ? He'll get his money back if he sells it on, don't you worry about that. He's starting from scratch. If the board doesn't show ambition, it is no better than the old board and may not match it either. Why don't you and others stop looking at personalities - we know you don't like Shepherd and are allowing this to taint your judgement, and likewise have taken in the new boards PR - but at the end of the day, they have proved nothing yet. This is the truth. I realise it may not go down well with some of those who think the old board did nothing right and the new board can't do anything wrong, but time will tell, and so far, this is the truth. Ridsdale made mistakes, but he had the ambition and for that he kicked the arse out of wankers like our ex directors before the Halls and Shepherd, and other tossers like Bob Murray and quite a lot of other chairmen of other clubs too. A few years of real tossers running the club ie as in the vast majority of clubs we overtook while we were owned by the Halls and Shepherd - and you would sharp change your tune. It's sad that this thread has developed like this. If people accepted factual information, it wouldn't happen. Why has every thread got to be turned into a debate about the old board? Fuck me, you bore people to tears. Like I said, if you chose to look at facts it wouldn't happen. Nice to see you think everyone is interested in the DOF bollocks you post all the time ...... And, I'm trying to move it on, as I said. Post all the time?! I post in threads people have made about it, unlike yourself who's been known to try and get a debate in general chat on to Shepherd. mackems.gif He's gone, get over it. We haven't got a DOF, and the club who in your opinion have the perfect setup with one, are struggling. Get over it. BTW.........I don't start posts about the old board. Good job you're not our DOF though, NE5. What with "Top Boss" Souness, Roeder who's in touch with the fans and the man you've always wanted in fat Sam. mackems.gif You couldn't have made 3 worse calls if you tried. mackems.gif won't bother getting into the "top boss" again, Faggio. You know it was edited - you don't like your posts edited either do you Thought you cancelled your account on here ? I can confidently predict that teams will win trophies that don't have your DOF, and clubs without these "DOF" blokes will finish higher than those who do have them, and thats not a bad call. BTW, Taylor will fetch more in the transfer market and go to a bigger club than Faye and Cacapa, if he leaves, guaranteed. You stick to YOUR call. EDited: just for good measure, you were happy with Allardyce yourself mackems.gif http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=14456.msg268925#msg268925 I'd be happy with O'Neill, infact I'd be happy with any one of most of the managers we've been linked with... O'Neill Hiddink Scolari Hitzfeld Allardyce Sven Not a bad bunch that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 The old board showed absolutely loads of ambition, right from the moment SJH seized control. In fact I'd say it was a level of ambition that was pretty much unparralleled in British football until Ambramovich bought Chelsea. Problem was they didn't neccessarily go about achieving the ambition in the best way sometimes. There are a canny few things I'd level against the Sheperds and Halls but lack of ambition isn't one of them. I think you're missing the point, NE5 is questioning the ambition of Mike Ashley because he only gave Allardyce £11 million to spend net, ignoring the £100 million he wiped off the debt which a fair chunk of was borrowed to back Souness. Ambition isn't always a good thing when you can't afford it, just ask Peter Ridsdale. As for not signing a replacement for Boumsong or having to sell Milner to sign a striker, I said at the time Roeder didn't manage his budget properly when signing Duff which is exactly what I've said regarding the signing of Smith when a proper replacement for Dyer was needed. I'm not ignoring anything. I don't care about Ashley paying off the clubs debt, it went towards the cost of buying the club. If the club had been debt free, the value of the purchase of the club would have been massively more, so it cancels it out. How much is the club worth now it is debt free ? He'll get his money back if he sells it on, don't you worry about that. He's starting from scratch. If the board doesn't show ambition, it is no better than the old board and may not match it either. Why don't you and others stop looking at personalities - we know you don't like Shepherd and are allowing this to taint your judgement, and likewise have taken in the new boards PR - but at the end of the day, they have proved nothing yet. This is the truth. I realise it may not go down well with some of those who think the old board did nothing right and the new board can't do anything wrong, but time will tell, and so far, this is the truth. Ridsdale made mistakes, but he had the ambition and for that he kicked the arse out of wankers like our ex directors before the Halls and Shepherd, and other tossers like Bob Murray and quite a lot of other chairmen of other clubs too. A few years of real tossers running the club ie as in the vast majority of clubs we overtook while we were owned by the Halls and Shepherd - and you would sharp change your tune. It's sad that this thread has developed like this. If people accepted factual information, it wouldn't happen. Why has every thread got to be turned into a debate about the old board? Fuck me, you bore people to tears. Like I said, if you chose to look at facts it wouldn't happen. Nice to see you think everyone is interested in the DOF bollocks you post all the time ...... And, I'm trying to move it on, as I said. Post all the time?! I post in threads people have made about it, unlike yourself who's been known to try and get a debate in general chat on to Shepherd. mackems.gif He's gone, get over it. We haven't got a DOF, and the club who in your opinion have the perfect setup with one, are struggling. Get over it. BTW.........I don't start posts about the old board. Good job you're not our DOF though, NE5. What with "Top Boss" Souness, Roeder who's in touch with the fans and the man you've always wanted in fat Sam. mackems.gif You couldn't have made 3 worse calls if you tried. mackems.gif won't bother getting into the "top boss" again, Faggio. You know it was edited - you don't like your posts edited either do you Thought you cancelled your account on here ? I can confidently predict that teams will win trophies that don't have your DOF, and clubs without these "DOF" blokes will finish higher than those who do have them, and thats not a bad call. BTW, Taylor will fetch more in the transfer market and go to a bigger club than Faye and Cacapa, if he leaves, guaranteed. You stick to YOUR call. EDited: just for good measure, you were happy with Allardyce yourself mackems.gif http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=14456.msg268925#msg268925 I'd be happy with O'Neill, infact I'd be happy with any one of most of the managers we've been linked with... O'Neill Hiddink Scolari Hitzfeld Allardyce Sven Not a bad bunch that Future England captain Taylor you mean? mackems.gif As for me wanting Allardyce, that was when Souness was in charge but I can find the link where I said I wanted either Sven or Houllier this time, two managers you didn't want because they didn't have the right attitude to manage Newcastle, I said at the time we could do better and I believe it even more now, I said at the time Allardyce was the right man when we were nearly bankrupt thanks to the old board but not the man for us now. Do you want me to find the link where you were happy with Roeder? Or the link on toontastic where you said you rated Boumsong only to make out you've never liked him from day one? To be honest NE5 you're not worth the hassle of looking and as for your Hawaythetoon site you can shove it up your arse as that bores the tits off me too, you're just a sad old man who gets his kicks from picking arguments on the Internet and signing up to toontastic under an alias just to post your bigoted rubbish just about sums you up. I won't be bothering with you any more like I don't bother with that prick of a brother of yours either, you pair of arseholes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 The old board showed absolutely loads of ambition, right from the moment SJH seized control. In fact I'd say it was a level of ambition that was pretty much unparralleled in British football until Ambramovich bought Chelsea. Problem was they didn't neccessarily go about achieving the ambition in the best way sometimes. There are a canny few things I'd level against the Sheperds and Halls but lack of ambition isn't one of them. I think you're missing the point, NE5 is questioning the ambition of Mike Ashley because he only gave Allardyce £11 million to spend net, ignoring the £100 million he wiped off the debt which a fair chunk of was borrowed to back Souness. Ambition isn't always a good thing when you can't afford it, just ask Peter Ridsdale. As for not signing a replacement for Boumsong or having to sell Milner to sign a striker, I said at the time Roeder didn't manage his budget properly when signing Duff which is exactly what I've said regarding the signing of Smith when a proper replacement for Dyer was needed. I'm not ignoring anything. I don't care about Ashley paying off the clubs debt, it went towards the cost of buying the club. If the club had been debt free, the value of the purchase of the club would have been massively more, so it cancels it out. How much is the club worth now it is debt free ? He'll get his money back if he sells it on, don't you worry about that. He's starting from scratch. If the board doesn't show ambition, it is no better than the old board and may not match it either. Why don't you and others stop looking at personalities - we know you don't like Shepherd and are allowing this to taint your judgement, and likewise have taken in the new boards PR - but at the end of the day, they have proved nothing yet. This is the truth. I realise it may not go down well with some of those who think the old board did nothing right and the new board can't do anything wrong, but time will tell, and so far, this is the truth. Ridsdale made mistakes, but he had the ambition and for that he kicked the arse out of wankers like our ex directors before the Halls and Shepherd, and other tossers like Bob Murray and quite a lot of other chairmen of other clubs too. A few years of real tossers running the club ie as in the vast majority of clubs we overtook while we were owned by the Halls and Shepherd - and you would sharp change your tune. It's sad that this thread has developed like this. If people accepted factual information, it wouldn't happen. Why has every thread got to be turned into a debate about the old board? Fuck me, you bore people to tears. Like I said, if you chose to look at facts it wouldn't happen. Nice to see you think everyone is interested in the DOF bollocks you post all the time ...... And, I'm trying to move it on, as I said. Post all the time?! I post in threads people have made about it, unlike yourself who's been known to try and get a debate in general chat on to Shepherd. mackems.gif He's gone, get over it. We haven't got a DOF, and the club who in your opinion have the perfect setup with one, are struggling. Get over it. BTW.........I don't start posts about the old board. Good job you're not our DOF though, NE5. What with "Top Boss" Souness, Roeder who's in touch with the fans and the man you've always wanted in fat Sam. mackems.gif You couldn't have made 3 worse calls if you tried. mackems.gif won't bother getting into the "top boss" again, Faggio. You know it was edited - you don't like your posts edited either do you Thought you cancelled your account on here ? I can confidently predict that teams will win trophies that don't have your DOF, and clubs without these "DOF" blokes will finish higher than those who do have them, and thats not a bad call. BTW, Taylor will fetch more in the transfer market and go to a bigger club than Faye and Cacapa, if he leaves, guaranteed. You stick to YOUR call. EDited: just for good measure, you were happy with Allardyce yourself mackems.gif http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=14456.msg268925#msg268925 I'd be happy with O'Neill, infact I'd be happy with any one of most of the managers we've been linked with... O'Neill Hiddink Scolari Hitzfeld Allardyce Sven Not a bad bunch that Future England captain Taylor you mean? mackems.gif As for me wanting Allardyce, that was when Souness was in charge but I can find the link where I said I wanted either Sven or Houllier this time, two managers you didn't want because they didn't have the right attitude to manage Newcastle, I said at the time we could do better and I believe it even more now, I said at the time Allardyce was the right man when we were nearly bankrupt thanks to the old board but not the man for us now. Do you want me to find the link where you were happy with Roeder? Or the link on toontastic where you said you rated Boumsong only to make out you've never liked him from day one? To be honest NE5 you're not worth the hassle of looking and as for your Hawaythetoon site you can shove it up your arse as that bores the tits off me too, you're just a sad old man who gets his kicks from picking arguments on the Internet and signing up to toontastic under an alias just to post your bigoted rubbish just about sums you up. I won't be bothering with you any more like I don't bother with that prick of a brother of yours either, you pair of arseholes. oh dear. Likes dragging up others' posts and points but doesn't like it the other way round eh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 "The vast majority of Rangers fans that I met, at the time, during the 80's, were in awe of Souness. The insisted that he was "the greatest manager going" or he "had turned the club around" all the usual comments..... At the time Liverpool appointed him to ressurect their former glories...and a fair few scousers thought he would do it on the basis of winning a 2 man league in Jockland.....and a fair few Rangers fans did too as well. Further down the line...who was at the Newcastle v Liverpool game, the 3-0 one which was the subject of the "bribes" allegation....who remembers the Leazes End singing "Souness for sunderland". I do. At the time, I was completely convinced that Souness v Keegan was absolutely no contest. We had the best manager by far, the one who was going to take us places, and the scousers had boobed and been totally deceived by his record and achievements in a league of no competition. Over the years, circumstances have proved differently. While personally I think Keegan has never been the same since he left us, and if he had stayed the sky would have been the limit, Souness has gained experience, adapted his approach to players ie management style and became IMO a top boss. How good we will see. As I posted last week, his treatment of Craig Bellamy is a test. Does he wash his hands of him as people like Wilkinson and Trevor [blow your nose] Francis did of Cantona, or will he focus him and manage him like Ferguson. It's up to him, just as much as it's up tp Bellamy. Both of them want to be the best, so they both now have the opportunity and the platform and it's the crossroads for both of them, as they say." http://z7.invisionfree.com/toonchat/index.php?showtopic=1228 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 Bellamy - he was a good value signing Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 "The vast majority of Rangers fans that I met, at the time, during the 80's, were in awe of Souness. The insisted that he was "the greatest manager going" or he "had turned the club around" all the usual comments..... At the time Liverpool appointed him to ressurect their former glories...and a fair few scousers thought he would do it on the basis of winning a 2 man league in Jockland.....and a fair few Rangers fans did too as well. Further down the line...who was at the Newcastle v Liverpool game, the 3-0 one which was the subject of the "bribes" allegation....who remembers the Leazes End singing "Souness for sunderland". I do. At the time, I was completely convinced that Souness v Keegan was absolutely no contest. We had the best manager by far, the one who was going to take us places, and the scousers had boobed and been totally deceived by his record and achievements in a league of no competition. Over the years, circumstances have proved differently. While personally I think Keegan has never been the same since he left us, and if he had stayed the sky would have been the limit, Souness has gained experience, adapted his approach to players ie management style and became IMO a top boss. How good we will see. As I posted last week, his treatment of Craig Bellamy is a test. Does he wash his hands of him as people like Wilkinson and Trevor [blow your nose] Francis did of Cantona, or will he focus him and manage him like Ferguson. It's up to him, just as much as it's up tp Bellamy. Both of them want to be the best, so they both now have the opportunity and the platform and it's the crossroads for both of them, as they say." http://z7.invisionfree.com/toonchat/index.php?showtopic=1228 despite the fact that you know this is edited - as happens regularly on toontastic to myself and other posters in the past - you have a bit of a problem in that you like to drag others' posts but don't like the same to your own. Similarly, you threw a strop the other night when your own username was edited to Faggio. I reckon quite a few people will be looking at this thread and seeing this. Whatever. Your silly, childish insults do you no favours either BTW. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jimmy1982 Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 The old board showed absolutely loads of ambition, right from the moment SJH seized control. In fact I'd say it was a level of ambition that was pretty much unparralleled in British football until Ambramovich bought Chelsea. Problem was they didn't neccessarily go about achieving the ambition in the best way sometimes. There are a canny few things I'd level against the Sheperds and Halls but lack of ambition isn't one of them. I think you're missing the point, NE5 is questioning the ambition of Mike Ashley because he only gave Allardyce £11 million to spend net, ignoring the £100 million he wiped off the debt which a fair chunk of was borrowed to back Souness. Ambition isn't always a good thing when you can't afford it, just ask Peter Ridsdale. As for not signing a replacement for Boumsong or having to sell Milner to sign a striker, I said at the time Roeder didn't manage his budget properly when signing Duff which is exactly what I've said regarding the signing of Smith when a proper replacement for Dyer was needed. Sorry, looks like I did miss the point - thought you were saying the old board weren't ambitious. My mistake! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 The old board showed absolutely loads of ambition, right from the moment SJH seized control. In fact I'd say it was a level of ambition that was pretty much unparralleled in British football until Ambramovich bought Chelsea. Problem was they didn't neccessarily go about achieving the ambition in the best way sometimes. There are a canny few things I'd level against the Sheperds and Halls but lack of ambition isn't one of them. I think you're missing the point, NE5 is questioning the ambition of Mike Ashley because he only gave Allardyce £11 million to spend net, ignoring the £100 million he wiped off the debt which a fair chunk of was borrowed to back Souness. Ambition isn't always a good thing when you can't afford it, just ask Peter Ridsdale. As for not signing a replacement for Boumsong or having to sell Milner to sign a striker, I said at the time Roeder didn't manage his budget properly when signing Duff which is exactly what I've said regarding the signing of Smith when a proper replacement for Dyer was needed. Sorry, looks like I did miss the point - thought you were saying the old board weren't ambitious. My mistake! It looks to me like he's saying the old board wasn't ambitious either ......... Likes to change his tunes, Baggio like Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 The old board showed absolutely loads of ambition, right from the moment SJH seized control. In fact I'd say it was a level of ambition that was pretty much unparralleled in British football until Ambramovich bought Chelsea. Problem was they didn't neccessarily go about achieving the ambition in the best way sometimes. There are a canny few things I'd level against the Sheperds and Halls but lack of ambition isn't one of them. I think you're missing the point, NE5 is questioning the ambition of Mike Ashley because he only gave Allardyce £11 million to spend net, ignoring the £100 million he wiped off the debt which a fair chunk of was borrowed to back Souness. Ambition isn't always a good thing when you can't afford it, just ask Peter Ridsdale. As for not signing a replacement for Boumsong or having to sell Milner to sign a striker, I said at the time Roeder didn't manage his budget properly when signing Duff which is exactly what I've said regarding the signing of Smith when a proper replacement for Dyer was needed. Sorry, looks like I did miss the point - thought you were saying the old board weren't ambitious. My mistake! It looks to me like he's saying the old board wasn't ambitious either ......... Likes to change his tunes, Baggio like Can you highlight where I said that on here or are you making things up again? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest elbee909 Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 I'm going to mention Andy Cole as a value for money signing, again. Just in a feeble attempt to get this thread away from the bollocks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 I'm going to mention Andy Cole as a value for money signing, again. Just in a feeble attempt to get this thread away from the bollocks. Aye, great shout. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 The old board showed absolutely loads of ambition, right from the moment SJH seized control. In fact I'd say it was a level of ambition that was pretty much unparralleled in British football until Ambramovich bought Chelsea. Problem was they didn't neccessarily go about achieving the ambition in the best way sometimes. There are a canny few things I'd level against the Sheperds and Halls but lack of ambition isn't one of them. I think you're missing the point, NE5 is questioning the ambition of Mike Ashley because he only gave Allardyce £11 million to spend net, ignoring the £100 million he wiped off the debt which a fair chunk of was borrowed to back Souness. Ambition isn't always a good thing when you can't afford it, just ask Peter Ridsdale. As for not signing a replacement for Boumsong or having to sell Milner to sign a striker, I said at the time Roeder didn't manage his budget properly when signing Duff which is exactly what I've said regarding the signing of Smith when a proper replacement for Dyer was needed. Sorry, looks like I did miss the point - thought you were saying the old board weren't ambitious. My mistake! It looks to me like he's saying the old board wasn't ambitious either ......... Likes to change his tunes, Baggio like Can you highlight where I said that on here or are you making things up again? me or jimmy ? The old board were massively ambitious, and by the way, thats not edited. mackems.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 I'm going to mention Andy Cole as a value for money signing, again. Just in a feeble attempt to get this thread away from the bollocks. Aye, great shout. I mentioned him earlier elbee. Keegan didn't need a DOF to find him though, but he picked Ray Wilkins to manage Fulham. Strange that football people don't get everything right, every time. Just imagine if everyone had DOF's, we would all win trophies mackems.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 The old board showed absolutely loads of ambition, right from the moment SJH seized control. In fact I'd say it was a level of ambition that was pretty much unparralleled in British football until Ambramovich bought Chelsea. Problem was they didn't neccessarily go about achieving the ambition in the best way sometimes. There are a canny few things I'd level against the Sheperds and Halls but lack of ambition isn't one of them. I think you're missing the point, NE5 is questioning the ambition of Mike Ashley because he only gave Allardyce £11 million to spend net, ignoring the £100 million he wiped off the debt which a fair chunk of was borrowed to back Souness. Ambition isn't always a good thing when you can't afford it, just ask Peter Ridsdale. As for not signing a replacement for Boumsong or having to sell Milner to sign a striker, I said at the time Roeder didn't manage his budget properly when signing Duff which is exactly what I've said regarding the signing of Smith when a proper replacement for Dyer was needed. Sorry, looks like I did miss the point - thought you were saying the old board weren't ambitious. My mistake! It looks to me like he's saying the old board wasn't ambitious either ......... Likes to change his tunes, Baggio like Can you highlight where I said that on here or are you making things up again? me or jimmy ? The old board were massively ambitious, and by the way, thats not edited. mackems.gif Considering you were the one accusing me without saying it and the fact I quoted you suggests its you I'm asking. So can you post a link to a thread on here where I've said the old board had no ambition or are you making it up? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pie Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 The old board showed absolutely loads of ambition, right from the moment SJH seized control. In fact I'd say it was a level of ambition that was pretty much unparralleled in British football until Ambramovich bought Chelsea. Problem was they didn't neccessarily go about achieving the ambition in the best way sometimes. There are a canny few things I'd level against the Sheperds and Halls but lack of ambition isn't one of them. I think you're missing the point, NE5 is questioning the ambition of Mike Ashley because he only gave Allardyce £11 million to spend net, ignoring the £100 million he wiped off the debt which a fair chunk of was borrowed to back Souness. Ambition isn't always a good thing when you can't afford it, just ask Peter Ridsdale. As for not signing a replacement for Boumsong or having to sell Milner to sign a striker, I said at the time Roeder didn't manage his budget properly when signing Duff which is exactly what I've said regarding the signing of Smith when a proper replacement for Dyer was needed. Sorry, looks like I did miss the point - thought you were saying the old board weren't ambitious. My mistake! Ambition needs to b met with aptitude. Shepherd did let his managers spend. Sadly, he let himself down when he appointed the recently sacked Gullit, the on the way to sack Souness and the fuck knows why Roeder. Of course his heart was in the right place but by fuck did he drop some clangers. The timing of his comments on Robson were just ludicrous. Anthing said to the contrary is myopic in the extreme. They got ambition mixed up with spending. The two things don't necessarily match. Of course, its without doubt that money was made available. Unfortunately, other things were poor e.g. appointments and the dubious nature of Willie MacKay, the Gary Speed and Bowyer sagas with Bobby etc He did fine when he was here but its without question that just like a lot of footballers mentioned in this thread, his time was up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest elbee909 Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 I'm going to mention Andy Cole as a value for money signing, again. Just in a feeble attempt to get this thread away from the bollocks. Aye, great shout. I mentioned him earlier elbee. Keegan didn't need a DOF to find him though, but he picked Ray Wilkins to manage Fulham. Strange that football people don't get everything right, every time. Just imagine if everyone had DOF's, we would all win trophies mackems.gif That's nice, dear. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 The old board showed absolutely loads of ambition, right from the moment SJH seized control. In fact I'd say it was a level of ambition that was pretty much unparralleled in British football until Ambramovich bought Chelsea. Problem was they didn't neccessarily go about achieving the ambition in the best way sometimes. There are a canny few things I'd level against the Sheperds and Halls but lack of ambition isn't one of them. I think you're missing the point, NE5 is questioning the ambition of Mike Ashley because he only gave Allardyce £11 million to spend net, ignoring the £100 million he wiped off the debt which a fair chunk of was borrowed to back Souness. Ambition isn't always a good thing when you can't afford it, just ask Peter Ridsdale. As for not signing a replacement for Boumsong or having to sell Milner to sign a striker, I said at the time Roeder didn't manage his budget properly when signing Duff which is exactly what I've said regarding the signing of Smith when a proper replacement for Dyer was needed. Sorry, looks like I did miss the point - thought you were saying the old board weren't ambitious. My mistake! It looks to me like he's saying the old board wasn't ambitious either ......... Likes to change his tunes, Baggio like Can you highlight where I said that on here or are you making things up again? me or jimmy ? The old board were massively ambitious, and by the way, thats not edited. mackems.gif Considering you were the one accusing me without saying it and the fact I quoted you suggests its you I'm asking. So can you post a link to a thread on here where I've said the old board had no ambition or are you making it up? I'm not really arsed Baggio, besides it upsets you, and also it may be edited by now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 The old board showed absolutely loads of ambition, right from the moment SJH seized control. In fact I'd say it was a level of ambition that was pretty much unparralleled in British football until Ambramovich bought Chelsea. Problem was they didn't neccessarily go about achieving the ambition in the best way sometimes. There are a canny few things I'd level against the Sheperds and Halls but lack of ambition isn't one of them. I think you're missing the point, NE5 is questioning the ambition of Mike Ashley because he only gave Allardyce £11 million to spend net, ignoring the £100 million he wiped off the debt which a fair chunk of was borrowed to back Souness. Ambition isn't always a good thing when you can't afford it, just ask Peter Ridsdale. As for not signing a replacement for Boumsong or having to sell Milner to sign a striker, I said at the time Roeder didn't manage his budget properly when signing Duff which is exactly what I've said regarding the signing of Smith when a proper replacement for Dyer was needed. Sorry, looks like I did miss the point - thought you were saying the old board weren't ambitious. My mistake! It looks to me like he's saying the old board wasn't ambitious either ......... Likes to change his tunes, Baggio like Can you highlight where I said that on here or are you making things up again? me or jimmy ? The old board were massively ambitious, and by the way, thats not edited. mackems.gif Considering you were the one accusing me without saying it and the fact I quoted you suggests its you I'm asking. So can you post a link to a thread on here where I've said the old board had no ambition or are you making it up? I'm not really arsed Baggio, besides it upsets you, and also it may be edited by now. So you made it up then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now