Baggio Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 not enough to pay the salaries of the players he really wanted to sign though ? I expect you'll ignore this. What players was this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Ferdinand was indeed sold as part of the politics of going PLC, instigated by Sir John Hall and with the influence of a man called Mark Corbridge who was hired to give assistance in maximising the valuation of the club and the mechanics of the flotation. No he wasn't, the club sold Ferdinand because they thought it was good money for a player of his age, when Shearer got injured they asked him to stay but he'd already given his word to Spurs and wanted to keep it. The club didn't want money for the PLC either, they needed the money because they owed the bank £6 million they had borrowed to sign Shearer and were told they couldn't borrow any more until they had paid that back, they made the majority of this by selling Holland, Huckerby and Kitson 6 months before Ferdinand left. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 No he wasn't, the club sold Ferdinand because they thought it was good money for a player of his age, when Shearer got injured they asked him to stay but he'd already given his word to Spurs and wanted to keep it. The club didn't want money for the PLC either, they needed the money because they owed the bank £6 million they had borrowed to sign Shearer and were told they couldn't borrow any more until they had paid that back, they made the majority of this by selling Holland, Huckerby and Kitson 6 months before Ferdinand left. Can you remember Dalglish on Sky after the game at Goodison when he was asked about the Ferdinand sale? He said something like not knowing anything about the Ferdinand sale. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest elbee909 Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 No he wasn't, the club sold Ferdinand because they thought it was good money for a player of his age, when Shearer got injured they asked him to stay but he'd already given his word to Spurs and wanted to keep it. The club didn't want money for the PLC either, they needed the money because they owed the bank £6 million they had borrowed to sign Shearer and were told they couldn't borrow any more until they had paid that back, they made the majority of this by selling Holland, Huckerby and Kitson 6 months before Ferdinand left. Can you remember Dalglish on Sky after the game at Goodison when he was asked about the Ferdinand sale? He said something like not knowing anything about the Ferdinand sale. Did he also say something later about not wanting to sell Asprilla, then sold him? Can't remember. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Did he also say something later about not wanting to sell Asprilla, then sold him? Can't remember. He did, I'm not sure how much was just him passing the buck for selling popular players. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Monkey Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 No he wasn't, the club sold Ferdinand because they thought it was good money for a player of his age, when Shearer got injured they asked him to stay but he'd already given his word to Spurs and wanted to keep it. The club didn't want money for the PLC either, they needed the money because they owed the bank £6 million they had borrowed to sign Shearer and were told they couldn't borrow any more until they had paid that back, they made the majority of this by selling Holland, Huckerby and Kitson 6 months before Ferdinand left. Can you remember Dalglish on Sky after the game at Goodison when he was asked about the Ferdinand sale? He said something like not knowing anything about the Ferdinand sale. And you believe what a manager says on Sky. Come one, you know better than that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 And you believe what a manager says on Sky. Come one, you know better than that. See the post above yours, I do think that he could have been covering for himself. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 Dalglish didn't particularly rate Ferdinand fwiw. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 Can you remember Dalglish on Sky after the game at Goodison when he was asked about the Ferdinand sale? He said something like not knowing anything about the Ferdinand sale. Keegan was told that he was required to sell a player to balance the books and maximise the flotation price. Everton [Joe Royle] had bid 6m for Ferdinand and he was unhappy at the prospect of selling him. So he had a meeting with Douglas Hall who said if you don't want to sell Ferdinand then don't sell him then. Later ie that summer, Dalglish sold Ferdinand. He chose to keep Arsprilla [wrong decision irrespective of one great night] because he was still under pressure to sell a player ie see some of the players he bought ie Rush, Barnes, all a big change from buying quality players in their prime or their youth as had previously been the policy. The underlying point remains though Mick. Ferdinand didn't want to leave the club, he only left because the club had indicated he wasn't wanted anymore. It could have been that Dalglish actually saw it as a good deal for a player his age, if that is the case then it actually means it was a managerial decision ie the way it ought to be, but still financially rooted. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 No he wasn't, the club sold Ferdinand because they thought it was good money for a player of his age, when Shearer got injured they asked him to stay but he'd already given his word to Spurs and wanted to keep it. The club didn't want money for the PLC either, they needed the money because they owed the bank £6 million they had borrowed to sign Shearer and were told they couldn't borrow any more until they had paid that back, they made the majority of this by selling Holland, Huckerby and Kitson 6 months before Ferdinand left. Can you remember Dalglish on Sky after the game at Goodison when he was asked about the Ferdinand sale? He said something like not knowing anything about the Ferdinand sale. Did he also say something later about not wanting to sell Asprilla, then sold him? Can't remember. it seems that he initially wanted to keep Arsprilla. I remember Ray Harford was on sky at that time, and they asked him what Kenny would think of Arsprilla. He said immediately that he would want to keep him at the club and was a "great player". On that basis it would suggest that Kenny later realised Arsprilla wasn't what he initially thought and so sold him on. Simple as that really, when he got a good fee he let him go. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 what has being a mackem got to do with it Mick ? Pop Robson called a press conference and told the press that he wanted to leave Newcastle because they were "unprofessional". A short while later, he had left for WEST HAM I mentioned it to show how loyal he'd been to his hometown club. You had also mentioned how "they wanted to leave the club they supported," to be fair to you it was intended at the other 3, of which one was also a mackem. I know what you meant, but Venison, Bracewell, Howey all played for the mackems, Steve Howey was also a sunderland supporter. Stan Anderson captained sunderland then moved to Newcastle and captained Newcastle. Once they put the shirt on it doesn't matter and sometimes they become mags, and vice versa [if the mackems had ever bought any of our best players ie Bob Moncur and Tommy Gibb only moved for the last years of their career and I know for a fact that Tommy Gibb looks for Newcastle results before anybody elses] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 are we in agreement they have failed the first test now ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 are we in agreement they have failed the first test now ? Are you asking if Keegan is a shit manager? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 Why do birds suddenly appear, everytime you are near? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 Why do birds suddenly appear, everytime you are near? i have a stalker mate Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 are we in agreement they have failed the first test now ? Are you asking if Keegan is a s*** manager? Hahaha, now this response should be interesting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 are we in agreement they have failed the first test now ? Are you asking if Keegan is a s*** manager? Hahaha, now this response should be interesting. not much point in conversing with Mick, there are loads of unanswered posts from me that he hasn't replied to. I'm pleased for you that you appear to think Mort and Ashley have done GREAT this season, and we haven't been embarrassed about ANYTHING. As for this particular question, step forward macca888 mackems.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 Hahaha, now this response should be interesting. It didn't turn out that way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 We're essentially talking about sacking a manager at the wrong time imo (transfer window), consequently not refreshing the first team and bringing in a man who has been out of the game completely for quite some time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 We're essentially talking about sacking a manager at the wrong time imo (transfer window) and bringing in a man who has been out of the game completely for quite some time, who consequently decided against refreshing the first team . Fixing your post that way I completely agree with you. I can't see why Keegan would come in the first place if he was told he wasn't going to be backed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 We're essentially talking about sacking a manager at the wrong time imo (transfer window) and bringing in a man who has been out of the game completely for quite some time, who consequently decided against refreshing the first team . Fixing your post that way I completely agree with you. I can't see why Keegan would come in the first place if he was told he wasn't going to be backed. I for one won't be blaming Keegan if we go down. The seeds were sown last summer, Allardyce is the first manager to complain about lack of backing from his board since, eeeerrrr......before the Halls and Shepherd, in fact. Or Keegan, from Sir John Hall, when he walked out after the swindon game. I agree with your comment above ie that he wouldn't have taken the job if he hadn't been shown ambition, but we will see in time how much will be shown when it comes to the crunch. Lets hope this is right, but if we go down it won't be much good. He'll have to get us straight back, and thats a year wasted at least. They have to at least equal those champions league finishes, in my eyes. They have to meet the challenge of their time, there is no way out of this comparsion. I'm not bothered in the slightest if they are "good blokes" at all, I couldn't give a toss I just want a winning football team. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 We're essentially talking about sacking a manager at the wrong time imo (transfer window) and bringing in a man who has been out of the game completely for quite some time, who consequently decided against refreshing the first team . Fixing your post that way I completely agree with you. I can't see why Keegan would come in the first place if he was told he wasn't going to be backed. I for one won't be blaming Keegan if we go down. The seeds were sown last summer, Allardyce is the first manager to complain about lack of backing from his board since, eeeerrrr......before the Halls and Shepherd, in fact. Or Keegan, from Sir John Hall, when he walked out after the swindon game. I agree with your comment above ie that he wouldn't have taken the job if he hadn't been shown ambition, but we will see in time how much will be shown when it comes to the crunch. Lets hope this is right, but if we go down it won't be much good. He'll have to get us straight back, and thats a year wasted at least. They have to at least equal those champions league finishes, in my eyes. They have to meet the challenge of their time, there is no way out of this comparsion. I'm not bothered in the slightest if they are "good blokes" at all, I couldn't give a toss I just want a winning football team. There's a Freddie Shepherd appreciation website, you should post there. www.fatbastard.com Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 I for one won't be blaming Keegan if we go down. The seeds were sown last summer, Allardyce is the first manager to complain about lack of backing from his board since, eeeerrrr......before the Halls and Shepherd, in fact. Or Keegan, from Sir John Hall, when he walked out after the swindon game. I agree with your comment above ie that he wouldn't have taken the job if he hadn't been shown ambition, but we will see in time how much will be shown when it comes to the crunch. Lets hope this is right, but if we go down it won't be much good. He'll have to get us straight back, and thats a year wasted at least. They have to at least equal those champions league finishes, in my eyes. They have to meet the challenge of their time, there is no way out of this comparsion. I'm not bothered in the slightest if they are "good blokes" at all, I couldn't give a toss I just want a winning football team. If you will not be blaming Keegan who will you blame? You mention Allardyce complaining about the "lack of backing," I'm sure he said they weren't acting quickly enough, he also later thanked Ashley and or Mort for allowing him to spend the most money he'd ever had in 1 window, did you forget that? I wonder how Roeder felt when he was allowed to spend less than Allardyce and Roeders spending was over a longer period of time? 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