Mort: I’m in charge

[Liam Liam Liam O]

My point is twofold.

 

One is that people are automatically assuming that because Ashley is rich, he will have ambition for the club, which is not dependant on him spending his own money, nobody is asking him to do an Abramovic.

 

Two is that people are automatically assuming that because he isn't Shepherd [and the major shareholders the Halls] that he will be better.

 

Examples?

 

99% of people on here, including you ?

 

You can change that perception that I have simply by agreeing with me that the new owners aren't better, until they have at least matched those Champions League qualifications.

 

But I'm not holding my breath that you - and other people without naming names but are obviuos - will admit this is the case.

 

You asked the question by the way.

 

Ah right, so you're assuming that's what people are assuming?

 

I haven't got a clue what Ashley will spend.

 

I haven't got a clue whether the new lot are 'better' than the old lot.

 

They've not had the chance to prove they are any better or worse. You seem to have given them mere months before voicing your displeasure and spouting off about Champions League finishes, yet don't think Shepherd can be questioned after ten years. It's laughable.

 

Its fair to assume over the period of his tenure, Ashley will spend more of his own money than the Hall's did.

[NE5]

My point is twofold.

 

One is that people are automatically assuming that because Ashley is rich, he will have ambition for the club, which is not dependant on him spending his own money, nobody is asking him to do an Abramovic.

 

Two is that people are automatically assuming that because he isn't Shepherd [and the major shareholders the Halls] that he will be better.

 

Examples?

 

99% of people on here, including you ?

 

You can change that perception that I have simply by agreeing with me that the new owners aren't better, until they have at least matched those Champions League qualifications.

 

But I'm not holding my breath that you - and other people without naming names but are obviuos - will admit this is the case.

 

You asked the question by the way.

 

Ah right, so you're assuming that's what people are assuming?

 

I haven't got a clue what Ashley will spend.

 

I haven't got a clue whether the new lot are 'better' than the old lot.

 

They've not had the chance to prove they are any better or worse. You seem to have given them mere months before voicing your displeasure and spouting off about Champions League finishes, it's laughable.

 

gotta agree, it seems very childish going on about who's 'not better', they've barely just taken over, it's saying stuff like that which makes you look biased NE5

 

Best ever 3 consecutive league positions in 50 years, more european qualifications than any other time in the clubs era, only bettered by 4 clubs is your answer I'm afraid.

 

If you wish to dispute cold hard facts, I can't help you.

 

No board who are shit does this.

 

BTW, is isn;t me who is saying anyone is better than anyone else, its rather the amount of people who are saying the new board are better when they are miles away form proving it yet. This is the only point that I am making.

 

 

[Dave]

HOW THE FUCK CAN THEY PROVE IT AFTER SIX MONTHS?

[Dr Venkman]

My point is twofold.

 

One is that people are automatically assuming that because Ashley is rich, he will have ambition for the club, which is not dependant on him spending his own money, nobody is asking him to do an Abramovic.

 

Two is that people are automatically assuming that because he isn't Shepherd [and the major shareholders the Halls] that he will be better.

 

Examples?

 

99% of people on here, including you ?

 

You can change that perception that I have simply by agreeing with me that the new owners aren't better, until they have at least matched those Champions League qualifications.

 

But I'm not holding my breath that you - and other people without naming names but are obviuos - will admit this is the case.

 

You asked the question by the way.

 

Ah right, so you're assuming that's what people are assuming?

 

I haven't got a clue what Ashley will spend.

 

I haven't got a clue whether the new lot are 'better' than the old lot.

 

They've not had the chance to prove they are any better or worse. You seem to have given them mere months before voicing your displeasure and spouting off about Champions League finishes, it's laughable.

 

gotta agree, it seems very childish going on about who's 'not better', they've barely just taken over, it's saying stuff like that which makes you look biased NE5

 

Best ever 3 consecutive league positions in 50 years, more european qualifications than any other time in the clubs era, only bettered by 4 clubs is your answer I'm afraid.

 

If you wish to dispute cold hard facts, I can't help you.

 

No board who are s*** does this.

 

BTW, is isn;t me who is saying anyone is better than anyone else, its rather the amount of people who are saying the new board are better when they are miles away form proving it yet. This is the only point that I am making.

 

 

 

once again you come in with your list of acheivements and facts when they were entirely un-necessary, nor was the bit about the ex board not being s***, i did NOT say that, again you make yourself look like an obsessive, and, if people want to be stupid in your opinion i.e. claiming ashely will automatically be better, just let them get on with it, why does it bother you so much?

 

its doing things like this that makes you look like you have an agenda

[NE5]

My point is twofold.

 

One is that people are automatically assuming that because Ashley is rich, he will have ambition for the club, which is not dependant on him spending his own money, nobody is asking him to do an Abramovic.

 

Two is that people are automatically assuming that because he isn't Shepherd [and the major shareholders the Halls] that he will be better.

 

Examples?

 

99% of people on here, including you ?

 

You can change that perception that I have simply by agreeing with me that the new owners aren't better, until they have at least matched those Champions League qualifications.

 

But I'm not holding my breath that you - and other people without naming names but are obviuos - will admit this is the case.

 

You asked the question by the way.

 

Ah right, so you're assuming that's what people are assuming?

 

I haven't got a clue what Ashley will spend.

 

I haven't got a clue whether the new lot are 'better' than the old lot.

 

They've not had the chance to prove they are any better or worse. You seem to have given them mere months before voicing your displeasure and spouting off about Champions League finishes, it's laughable.

 

gotta agree, it seems very childish going on about who's 'not better', they've barely just taken over, it's saying stuff like that which makes you look biased NE5

 

Best ever 3 consecutive league positions in 50 years, more european qualifications than any other time in the clubs era, only bettered by 4 clubs is your answer I'm afraid.

 

If you wish to dispute cold hard facts, I can't help you.

 

No board who are s*** does this.

 

BTW, is isn;t me who is saying anyone is better than anyone else, its rather the amount of people who are saying the new board are better when they are miles away form proving it yet. This is the only point that I am making.

 

 

 

once again you come in with your list of acheivements and facts when they were entirely un-necessary, nor was the bit about the ex board not being s***, i did NOT say that, again you make yourself look like an obsessive, and, if people want to be stupid in your opinion i.e. claiming ashely will automatically be better, just let them get on with it, why does it bother you so much?

 

its doing things like this that makes you look like you have an agenda

 

not an agenda. Just facts.

 

New board have to beat it to show they are better, whats the problem.

 

Do you think they are better, or do you agree ?

 

 

[Mick]

 

Lets put it another way then. Yes I wanted Allardyce. If he loses the plot and fails to do what I hoped, I'll admit it. However, he needs backing from the board, like anyone. It is significant that he has commented on things being "not as I thought when i took the job" etc etc. Don't ask me to look for this, I can't be arsed, and it would kill some people on here anyway to admit that the new board aren't backing their manager like the old board promised him.

 

How do you know how much Allardyce was promised by the old board, the old board which was carrying over £100 million in debt, the old board who had already spent the Adidas and Northern Rock money?  The old board that you think/spin ran up more than £100 million on redeveloping St James' while actually spending £44 million on the ground expansion.

 

How much do you think Allardyce should have been given considering he's spent more net than the average net spent under Shepherd and more money then Sir Bobby was given when he first took over?

 

 

Or maybe not. They would make excuses, or hide behind this "plan" to develop a youth policy - which is cheaper. I would like to know where the club think they will attract the best youngsters to the club if the club is a mid table team and not showing ambition to go higher ? As I said previously to someone else, you won't see this point if you think anyone but Fred would be an improvement, which is fantastically laughable

 

Mort has spent more new money already than Shepherd spent on average, is that proof that he has more ambition than Shepherd?

 

I am pleased you think it is no time to make judgements, as it happens I agree, but I don't like the comments I have read. You will have to accept that people like me have seen this sort of bollocks before, and so quite correctly believe that actions speak louder than words, so I'm not fooled by silly PR gimmicks.  By the same token, could you explain if you think Ashley and Mort are better than the ex board, and if so why ?

 

Actions do speak louder than words, good job we're now spending more than our average spend for the previous chairman, wouldn't you agree?

 

[NE5]

HOW THE FUCK CAN THEY PROVE IT AFTER SIX MONTHS?

 

Its not me who has decided they are better already Dave. Its other people. The reality is that you just can't say this - or that they are worse -  at the moment, I agree. You are directing your comment to the wrong person.

 

 

[NE5]

 

Lets put it another way then. Yes I wanted Allardyce. If he loses the plot and fails to do what I hoped, I'll admit it. However, he needs backing from the board, like anyone. It is significant that he has commented on things being "not as I thought when i took the job" etc etc. Don't ask me to look for this, I can't be arsed, and it would kill some people on here anyway to admit that the new board aren't backing their manager like the old board promised him.

 

How do you know how much Allardyce was promised by the old board, the old board which was carrying over £100 million in debt, the old board who had already spent the Adidas and Northern Rock money?  The old board that you think/spin ran up more than £100 million on redeveloping St James' while actually spending £44 million on the ground expansion.

 

How much do you think Allardyce should have been given considering he's spent more net than the average net spent under Shepherd and more money then Sir Bobby was given when he first took over?

 

 

Or maybe not. They would make excuses, or hide behind this "plan" to develop a youth policy - which is cheaper. I would like to know where the club think they will attract the best youngsters to the club if the club is a mid table team and not showing ambition to go higher ? As I said previously to someone else, you won't see this point if you think anyone but Fred would be an improvement, which is fantastically laughable

 

Mort has spent more new money already than Shepherd spent on average, is that proof that he has more ambition than Shepherd?

 

I am pleased you think it is no time to make judgements, as it happens I agree, but I don't like the comments I have read. You will have to accept that people like me have seen this sort of bollocks before, and so quite correctly believe that actions speak louder than words, so I'm not fooled by silly PR gimmicks.  By the same token, could you explain if you think Ashley and Mort are better than the ex board, and if so why ?

 

Actions do speak louder than words, good job we're now spending more than our average spend for the previous chairman, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Dave]

HOW THE FUCK CAN THEY PROVE IT AFTER SIX MONTHS?

 

Its not me who has decided they are better already Dave. Its other people. The reality is that you just can't say this - or that they are worse -  at the moment, I agree. You are directing your comment to the wrong person.

 

 

 

Why are you going on and on about all the stuff they have to prove then? Come back and complain after ten years, that's what those who'd had enough of Shepherd did.

 

Bah, fuck this for a game of soldiers; you've thrown so many straw men everywhere it's ridiculous.

[Dr Venkman]

My point is twofold.

 

One is that people are automatically assuming that because Ashley is rich, he will have ambition for the club, which is not dependant on him spending his own money, nobody is asking him to do an Abramovic.

 

Two is that people are automatically assuming that because he isn't Shepherd [and the major shareholders the Halls] that he will be better.

 

Examples?

 

99% of people on here, including you ?

 

You can change that perception that I have simply by agreeing with me that the new owners aren't better, until they have at least matched those Champions League qualifications.

 

But I'm not holding my breath that you - and other people without naming names but are obviuos - will admit this is the case.

 

You asked the question by the way.

 

Ah right, so you're assuming that's what people are assuming?

 

I haven't got a clue what Ashley will spend.

 

I haven't got a clue whether the new lot are 'better' than the old lot.

 

They've not had the chance to prove they are any better or worse. You seem to have given them mere months before voicing your displeasure and spouting off about Champions League finishes, it's laughable.

 

gotta agree, it seems very childish going on about who's 'not better', they've barely just taken over, it's saying stuff like that which makes you look biased NE5

 

Best ever 3 consecutive league positions in 50 years, more european qualifications than any other time in the clubs era, only bettered by 4 clubs is your answer I'm afraid.

 

If you wish to dispute cold hard facts, I can't help you.

 

No board who are s*** does this.

 

BTW, is isn;t me who is saying anyone is better than anyone else, its rather the amount of people who are saying the new board are better when they are miles away form proving it yet. This is the only point that I am making.

 

 

 

once again you come in with your list of acheivements and facts when they were entirely un-necessary, nor was the bit about the ex board not being s***, i did NOT say that, again you make yourself look like an obsessive, and, if people want to be stupid in your opinion i.e. claiming ashely will automatically be better, just let them get on with it, why does it bother you so much?

 

its doing things like this that makes you look like you have an agenda

 

not an agenda. Just facts.

 

New board have to beat it to show they are better, whats the problem.

 

Do you think they are better, or do you agree ?

 

 

 

right, but the facts were totally un-necessary in relation to what i was saying, am i talking to myself here? i already said that

 

and the problem with the 'new board have to beat it to show they are better' is that its so mind bogglingly OBVIOUS that i dont know why anyone would bother to say it, UNLESS, they for some reason wanted to continually defend the last board

 

and as for whether i agree, i'm reserving judgement until i have more things to go on, its to soon man

[fredbob]

My point is twofold.

 

One is that people are automatically assuming that because Ashley is rich, he will have ambition for the club, which is not dependant on him spending his own money, nobody is asking him to do an Abramovic.

 

Two is that people are automatically assuming that because he isn't Shepherd [and the major shareholders the Halls] that he will be better.

 

Examples?

 

99% of people on here, including you ?

 

You can change that perception that I have simply by agreeing with me that the new owners aren't better, until they have at least matched those Champions League qualifications.

 

But I'm not holding my breath that you - and other people without naming names but are obviuos - will admit this is the case.

 

You asked the question by the way.

 

Ah right, so you're assuming that's what people are assuming?

 

I haven't got a clue what Ashley will spend.

 

I haven't got a clue whether the new lot are 'better' than the old lot.

 

They've not had the chance to prove they are any better or worse. You seem to have given them mere months before voicing your displeasure and spouting off about Champions League finishes, it's laughable.

 

gotta agree, it seems very childish going on about who's 'not better', they've barely just taken over, it's saying stuff like that which makes you look biased NE5

 

Best ever 3 consecutive league positions in 50 years, more european qualifications than any other time in the clubs era, only bettered by 4 clubs is your answer I'm afraid.

 

If you wish to dispute cold hard facts, I can't help you.

 

No board who are s*** does this.

 

BTW, is isn;t me who is saying anyone is better than anyone else, its rather the amount of people who are saying the new board are better when they are miles away form proving it yet. This is the only point that I am making.

 

 

 

Two things then NE5.

 

Do you think that the old board is better than this board?

 

and

 

Best ever 3 consecutive league positions in 50 years, more european qualifications than any other time in the clubs era, only bettered by 4 clubs is your answer I'm afraid.

 

And despite the consectutive top 3 finishes we still sack the manager, setting the club back 7-8 years. As for the euro qualification stat, its terribly misleading fact but you quote it so often as "cold hard fact" you could say we qualified for europe more time than any other team/

 

you could say that....or....

 

you could say under Shepards stweardship we fininhsed in the top 10 only 4 times out of 10 seasons, and 3 of those 4, top 10 fininshes were achieved by one manager who was sacked. One of 5 shepard sackings.  Take SBR out the picture and you have 1 top ten finish in 5 years.

 

Both are contain correct stats, one paints the truer picture.

 

Now how many clubs achieved a better record league finishing wise? i'd say a few more(?),even if it was one more (Villa?) with the notorious Deadly Doug it would undermne alot of your arguments because it would equate to a chairman who has invest diddly squat(relatively speaking) and achieved more within that 10 year time scale tht you defined.

 

Now which stat do you think is more accurate  description of Freds time as Chairman.

 

(about the 15th time ive peddled this fact without response)

 

Incidently,what is your relationship with Freddy Shepard?

[Mick]

 

Best ever 3 consecutive league positions in 50 years, more european qualifications than any other time in the clubs era, only bettered by 4 clubs is your answer I'm afraid.

 

You do know that European football hasn't always been around so was not possible at times when we would have qualified had it been around, you do don't you?

 

If you wish to dispute cold hard facts, I can't help you.

 

No board who are s*** does this.

 

Did Shepherd finish above shitty Doug Ellis in the league more often than not?

 

BTW, is isn;t me who is saying anyone is better than anyone else, its rather the amount of people who are saying the new board are better when they are miles away form proving it yet. This is the only point that I am making.

 

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzZZZZZZZZZZ

 

[thomas]

I guess people are going to read the tea leaves how they may.  I, for one, am optimistic about things given the overall tone and content of the messages delivered by Ashley and Mort so far.  The odd one or two are ambiguous, there's no denying.  And it almost goes without saying though that talk is cheap.  It's  actions that speak louder than any "oh I'd like to win the league in 5 years and Europe would be nice too" statement. 

 

All that said I am, for better or worse, backing Mort and Ashley to match ambition to potential and if not establish us back in the upper tier than at least force the coining of the term "Big 5." 

[ChezGiven]

I guess people are going to read the tea leaves how they may.  I, for one, am optimistic about things given the overall tone and content of the messages delivered by Ashley and Mort so far.  The odd one or two are ambiguous, there's no denying.  And it almost goes without saying though that talk is cheap.  It's  actions that speak louder than any "oh I'd like to win the league in 5 years and Europe would be nice too" statement. 

 

All that said I am, for better or worse, backing Mort and Ashley to match ambition to potential and if not establish us back in the upper tier than at least force the coining of the term "Big 5." 

 

Well unless they pull their fingers out of their arses, that can be put on hold till at least the 2009/2010 season.

 

Its really quite simple, without europe we wont attract top players. Without top players we wont get into europe. Any notions of a big 5 are thus miles away.

 

To break this conundrum you need large investments, good judgements and to ultimately not be scared to take a gamble. Like when Bobby bought Robert.

[sicsfingeredmong]

I guess people are going to read the tea leaves how they may.  I, for one, am optimistic about things given the overall tone and content of the messages delivered by Ashley and Mort so far.  The odd one or two are ambiguous, there's no denying.  And it almost goes without saying though that talk is cheap.  It's  actions that speak louder than any "oh I'd like to win the league in 5 years and Europe would be nice too" statement. 

 

All that said I am, for better or worse, backing Mort and Ashley to match ambition to potential and if not establish us back in the upper tier than at least force the coining of the term "Big 5." 

 

Well unless they pull their fingers out of their arses, that can be put on hold till at least the 2009/2010 season.

 

Its really quite simple, without europe we wont attract top players. Without top players we wont get into europe. Any notions of a big 5 are thus miles away.

 

To break this conundrum you need large investments, good judgements and to ultimately not be scared to take a gamble. Like when Bobby bought Robert.

 

It's a bloody simple rule isn't it, and it also coincides with the potential of the *club's newly adopted youth policy. *if Mort's comments are anything to go by.

 

And you won't attract the top youngsters either, the very same youngsters who appear on Wenger's radar thanks to his network of contacts. The same applies to Chelsea thanks to Arnesson's priceless "Black Book", and a host of other top clubs. The competition to sign them is tough, you need more than just a lucrative contract on offer to snare their signatures.

 

Remember it was only a few seasons back when we found ourselves in a position of strength in the transfer market after the previous board backed SBR and gambled 10m on Robert in the Summer of 01/02, and this 'position of strength relates to offering them European football and for these youngsters it's an opportunity to be spotted by their respective national selectors at senior level, that we fought off AC Milan and a reportedly a host of 'big clubs' on the continent in the race to sign Viana who was then believed to the top 'creative central midfield' prospect going around.

 

 

[ChezGiven]

I guess people are going to read the tea leaves how they may.  I, for one, am optimistic about things given the overall tone and content of the messages delivered by Ashley and Mort so far.  The odd one or two are ambiguous, there's no denying.  And it almost goes without saying though that talk is cheap.  It's  actions that speak louder than any "oh I'd like to win the league in 5 years and Europe would be nice too" statement. 

 

All that said I am, for better or worse, backing Mort and Ashley to match ambition to potential and if not establish us back in the upper tier than at least force the coining of the term "Big 5." 

 

Well unless they pull their fingers out of their arses, that can be put on hold till at least the 2009/2010 season.

 

Its really quite simple, without europe we wont attract top players. Without top players we wont get into europe. Any notions of a big 5 are thus miles away.

 

To break this conundrum you need large investments, good judgements and to ultimately not be scared to take a gamble. Like when Bobby bought Robert.

 

It's a bloody simple rule isn't it, and it also coincides with the potential of the *club's newly adopted youth policy. *if Mort's comments are anything to go by.

 

And you won't attract the top youngsters either, the very same youngsters who appear on Wenger's radar thanks to his network of contacts. The same applies to Chelsea thanks to Arnesson's priceless "Black Book", and a host of other top clubs. The competition to sign them is tough, you need more than just a lucrative contract on offer to snare their signatures.

 

Remember it was only a few seasons back when we found ourselves in a position of strength in the transfer market after the previous board backed SBR and gambled 10m on Robert in the Summer of 01/02, and this 'position of strength relates to offering them European football and for these youngsters it's an opportunity to be spotted by their respective national selectors at senior level, that we fought off AC Milan and a reportedly a host of 'big clubs' on the continent in the race to sign Viana who was then believed to the top 'creative central midfield' prospect going around.

 

 

Just because Viana didnt succeed here shouldnt detract from that argument either. We got him because we were in europe and it looked like we were going places (he wasnt the only one to get that wrong).

 

A youth policy in todays market, for us, means eating off the scraps left over from top 4 and the rest of the big clubs across europe. You're spot on shaman, the ability to attract talent suffers from the same issues at whatever level you look at it.

[thomas]

I guess people are going to read the tea leaves how they may.  I, for one, am optimistic about things given the overall tone and content of the messages delivered by Ashley and Mort so far.  The odd one or two are ambiguous, there's no denying.  And it almost goes without saying though that talk is cheap.  It's  actions that speak louder than any "oh I'd like to win the league in 5 years and Europe would be nice too" statement. 

 

All that said I am, for better or worse, backing Mort and Ashley to match ambition to potential and if not establish us back in the upper tier than at least force the coining of the term "Big 5." 

Well unless they pull their fingers out of their arses, that can be put on hold till at least the 2009/2010 season.

 

Its really quite simple, without europe we wont attract top players. Without top players we wont get into europe. Any notions of a big 5 are thus miles away.

 

To break this conundrum you need large investments, good judgements and to ultimately not be scared to take a gamble. Like when Bobby bought Robert.

Right but I don't think they've ruled out any of that. 

 

Yes, Mort has said we won't be spending big in January.  But just as it's speculation for me to say they're waiting for summer for the big moves it's also speculation to say they won't be. 

 

I guess what I don't get is why you think prudence at an early stage is equivilant to self-administered colon massages.  You mention waiting till 09/10 and that doesn't seem so far fetched or unreasonable.  I certianly wasn't expecting instant success, were you?

[Parky]

I guess people are going to read the tea leaves how they may.  I, for one, am optimistic about things given the overall tone and content of the messages delivered by Ashley and Mort so far.  The odd one or two are ambiguous, there's no denying.  And it almost goes without saying though that talk is cheap.  It's  actions that speak louder than any "oh I'd like to win the league in 5 years and Europe would be nice too" statement. 

 

All that said I am, for better or worse, backing Mort and Ashley to match ambition to potential and if not establish us back in the upper tier than at least force the coining of the term "Big 5." 

Well unless they pull their fingers out of their arses, that can be put on hold till at least the 2009/2010 season.

 

Its really quite simple, without europe we wont attract top players. Without top players we wont get into europe. Any notions of a big 5 are thus miles away.

 

To break this conundrum you need large investments, good judgements and to ultimately not be scared to take a gamble. Like when Bobby bought Robert.

Right but I don't think they've ruled out any of that. 

 

Yes, Mort has said we won't be spending big in January.  But just as it's speculation for me to say they're waiting for summer for the big moves it's also speculation to say they won't be. 

 

I guess what I don't get is why you think prudence at an early stage is equivilant to self-administered colon massages.  You mention waiting till 09/10 and that doesn't seem so far fetched or unreasonable.  I certianly wasn't expecting instant success, were you?

 

Buying one or two quality players is hardly 'instant success'.

[ATB]

I guess people are going to read the tea leaves how they may.  I, for one, am optimistic about things given the overall tone and content of the messages delivered by Ashley and Mort so far.  The odd one or two are ambiguous, there's no denying.  And it almost goes without saying though that talk is cheap.  It's  actions that speak louder than any "oh I'd like to win the league in 5 years and Europe would be nice too" statement. 

 

All that said I am, for better or worse, backing Mort and Ashley to match ambition to potential and if not establish us back in the upper tier than at least force the coining of the term "Big 5." 

 

Well unless they pull their fingers out of their arses, that can be put on hold till at least the 2009/2010 season.

 

Its really quite simple, without europe we wont attract top players. Without top players we wont get into europe. Any notions of a big 5 are thus miles away.

 

To break this conundrum you need large investments, good judgements and to ultimately not be scared to take a gamble. Like when Bobby bought Robert.

 

It's a bloody simple rule isn't it, and it also coincides with the potential of the *club's newly adopted youth policy. *if Mort's comments are anything to go by.

 

And you won't attract the top youngsters either, the very same youngsters who appear on Wenger's radar thanks to his network of contacts. The same applies to Chelsea thanks to Arnesson's priceless "Black Book", and a host of other top clubs. The competition to sign them is tough, you need more than just a lucrative contract on offer to snare their signatures.

 

Remember it was only a few seasons back when we found ourselves in a position of strength in the transfer market after the previous board backed SBR and gambled 10m on Robert in the Summer of 01/02, and this 'position of strength relates to offering them European football and for these youngsters it's an opportunity to be spotted by their respective national selectors at senior level, that we fought off AC Milan and a reportedly a host of 'big clubs' on the continent in the race to sign Viana who was then believed to the top 'creative central midfield' prospect going around.

 

 

Just because Viana didnt succeed here shouldnt detract from that argument either. We got him because we were in europe and it looked like we were going places (he wasnt the only one to get that wrong).

 

A youth policy in todays market, for us, means eating off the scraps left over from top 4 and the rest of the big clubs across europe. You're spot on shaman, the ability to attract talent suffers from the same issues at whatever level you look at it.

 

So you mean just because we can´t sign player like Meesi we shoulden´t try to search for talented players?

 

Your right. We may not can attract top procpet to the club yet. But just because of that we shoulden´t stop looking. Who knows. Arsenal, Man Utd etc can miss top player. And you know alot of players mabey aren´t that good at youth aged and than can develop.

 

Mabey oneday we can make it to the top of the table and then we can start attract the top youngsters. But even how good the first-team we should be looking for top young players. Just because we don´t can attract Messi we shoulden´t stop looking.

[thomas]

Buying one or two quality players is hardly 'instant success'.

No, it's certianly not.  I came off a bit NE5ish there with that quote didn't I. 

 

But by the same token I think not spending, during this window, on players who would stroll into our first team, isn't a bad move in and of itself. 

[nufcjmc]

Funny thing is many of the young prospects out there in europe dont always hit the ground running I remember when Ronaldo went to manu for about 15million I thought he wasn't really anything special but obviously with a lot of faith and a consistant approach from the manager the player is undoubtably one of the best midfield players in the league. Its a catch 22 situation you can either buy players already developed and proven and take the risk they wont adapt to the league and/or spunk 10-20 million on them. Or you buy young and try and use the coaching set up to develop them into a starting 11 player and you may have gotten a bargin although there is always the chance that they will never go beyond an ok type player i.e. Dave Nugent.

[ChezGiven]

I guess people are going to read the tea leaves how they may.  I, for one, am optimistic about things given the overall tone and content of the messages delivered by Ashley and Mort so far.  The odd one or two are ambiguous, there's no denying.  And it almost goes without saying though that talk is cheap.  It's  actions that speak louder than any "oh I'd like to win the league in 5 years and Europe would be nice too" statement. 

 

All that said I am, for better or worse, backing Mort and Ashley to match ambition to potential and if not establish us back in the upper tier than at least force the coining of the term "Big 5." 

Well unless they pull their fingers out of their arses, that can be put on hold till at least the 2009/2010 season.

 

Its really quite simple, without europe we wont attract top players. Without top players we wont get into europe. Any notions of a big 5 are thus miles away.

 

To break this conundrum you need large investments, good judgements and to ultimately not be scared to take a gamble. Like when Bobby bought Robert.

Right but I don't think they've ruled out any of that. 

 

Yes, Mort has said we won't be spending big in January.  But just as it's speculation for me to say they're waiting for summer for the big moves it's also speculation to say they won't be. 

 

I guess what I don't get is why you think prudence at an early stage is equivilant to self-administered colon massages.  You mention waiting till 09/10 and that doesn't seem so far fetched or unreasonable.  I certianly wasn't expecting instant success, were you?

 

Nae idea what that means 

 

This is one of the fiercest competitions in the sporting and business world. In fact, as a market its a pure out and out cut-throat, break-neck speed manifestation of the devil's invisible hand. We need iron balls and to take risks and we need to do it yesterday otherwise someone else will do it before us.

 

Patience is something i've got a lot of, i've defended Allardyce all season, saying we need to give it time. We also need to invest, its an incontrevertible truth of any competitive market. The manager needs time as he has the hardest and most complicated job at the club. The board have one of the simplest. Its called 'backing the manager'.

[Thespence]

We should not be trying match the big 4 in signing potential as all that does is result in in mega-inflated prices, we should move ahead of them & compete with progressive french clubs, PSV, Ajax, the big 3 in Portugal etc. We can beat all of these clubs with £££'s. We need some here & now players signed ASAP, long term plans are great for developing 'the business' but football clubs are about results of the first team & everything else functions off that.

[nufcjmc]

We should not be trying match the big 4 in signing potential as all that does is result in in mega-inflated prices, we should move ahead of them & compete with progressive french clubs, PSV, Ajax, the big 3 in Portugal etc. We can beat all of these clubs with £££'s. We need some here & now players signed ASAP, long term plans are great for developing 'the business' but football clubs are about results of the first team & everything else functions off that.

 

Thing is if your willing to splash the cash you can get the best of both worlds as with the right ammount of money you can get great "here and now" talent who is still in their early 20's. It does not have to be 15-16 year olds nore does it have to be 30-33 year olds past their prime comming in to fill gaps.

[Thespence]

We should not be trying match the big 4 in signing potential as all that does is result in in mega-inflated prices, we should move ahead of them & compete with progressive french clubs, PSV, Ajax, the big 3 in Portugal etc. We can beat all of these clubs with £££'s. We need some here & now players signed ASAP, long term plans are great for developing 'the business' but football clubs are about results of the first team & everything else functions off that.

 

Thing is if your willing to splash the cash you can get the best of both worlds as with the right ammount of money you can get great "here and now" talent who is still in their early 20's. It does not have to be 15-16 year olds nore does it have to be 30-33 year olds past their prime comming in to fill gaps.

 

I never used age in my post, here & now refers to ability. Just dont want a load of  Ben Tozer's signed during Jan even though they are needed due to shite at youth & resever level