Ashley has failed Newcastle United.

[fredbob]

 

 

 

You are right about the debt. £45 million was repayable in instalments ending in 2016. The takeover triggered a clause in the loan agreement to the effect that the lender could call the debt in with 60 days notice. So Ashley got stuck with that. The other £30 million that Ashley put in was to satisfy the auditors that the club could carry on trading as a going concern. It was technically insolvent at 30th June 2007 so the auditors would have needed that assurance.

 

How much was the original loan? I'm sure it wasn't much different to £45 million.

 

never mind mick. The top 4 who win all the trophies have debts of 1.5bn quid between them. I'm pleased you think we are in better shape than those 4 clubs and didn't waste any money in the transfer window

 

mackems.gif

 

How long have they been in debt to such an extent that they are now?

 

Typically stupid argument.

 

I've tried to explain the mess the club was in before they completely transformed it but you don't want to listen.

 

Your loss.

 

 

 

Was talking about the top 4. The stats that were released earlier show a business which categorically wasnt being run properly. This statement has nothing to do with thier ambition or transfer funds but the fact that they didnt stick to a sustainable business plan which is the norm for other clubs,

 

including the 87 or so who haven't qualified for europe as often as we did ? They have better "business plans" then

 

You're missing the point though, we havent always operated this way, in fact we were more successful when we operated the normal way. Its apretty silly comparison to be honest.

 

It seems to me that Shephard et al were forced to open up the threshold on wages and transfers after the sacking of Bobby in orde to stir up interest for season ticket sales.

 

To me, the whole plan was akin to a person using one credit card to clear the debts off another credit card.

 

on the contrary, we operated in the "normal" way for over 30 years and ended up with one foot in the 3rd division, sub 20,000 crowds, and any half decent player that we managed to find somewhere down in the 4th division moved on to further their career, not to mention 3 local lads who all became major England players.

 

By "normal" i mean the standard accepted, ie with a wage bill which was ridiculously dispropoitnate to the clubs standings. There isnt a single successfull club in the world which had the wage figures that we did and the reason for this is that they are unsustainable.

 

I dont complain about debt in the sense that if we are £30m in debt if we spend £30m that makes us £60m in debt, thats by all accounts is the way that alot of people seem to view debt, i understand that clubs need to speculate in order to accumulate, but i think you miss the fact that the club had no choice but to risk the fututre of the club by extendeing the wage threshold in order to cover the fallacies of there decisions, which in turn put the future of the club at reasonable risk.

 

Shephard was in a situation where because of the poor decision he and the board had made, the season ticket revenue against which the loan for the sttadium was pinned against was dropping, he and the board were desperate capture the imagination of the season ticket holders by attempting to cover up there poor decisions by firstly attempting to sign Wayne Rooney, then go on a lavish £50m spending spree, which (by putting 2 and 2 together and getting..) included shunning lesser options such as Boa Morte (undeniably Souness' first choice) and going on the lavish but expensive Luque which included lavish wages and silly transfer fee. The Anelka and Owen situation is a little clouded so i wont go into it but i believe honestly that the same applies here. When 20k people turned up for the signing of Owen shephard et al must of been licking thier lips. They had recouped the interest back in the team and had the interest payments for the loan susidised for another season.

 

Never in the past did any of our signings have to do more with the business that it did for the club. It was a calculated risk, and as far as i can see and forsee wouldnt of paid off.

 

To clarify, you are saying the club didn't focus enough on making a profit ie through handing their appointed manager a lot of money, then criticising moves to bring in another player or make other moves to increase spectator interest and generate more money ?

 

 

 

What? I never said anything about making a profit, i said the club didnt stick to the orthodox accepted plan, i.e 50% wage bill of revenue. Which to me suggests that they were forced to such extreme measure because of the poor decisions they made, ie the sacking of Bobby and replacement.

 

the only criticism i have of the signings were that 2 of them in my mind at least werent made in the interest of the playing side of the team, but made for the sake of the business.

 

I'e Signing "foreigner so must be classy" Luque as opposed to signing "tried and tested so not very interesting Boa Morte" stoked up more interest so the fans obvioulsy came on board expecting a new era, ergo, season ticket sales increased and the clubs debts were tamed for antoher season.

 

The same financial risk was taken with Owen, we were forced to pay inflated wages for Owen because there was no other way to sign him, it was a mark of desperation to try and recoup interest for season ticket holders.

 

In my opinion the signing was made for the business primarily, not the first team, the circumstancial evidence would suggest the saem as well.

 

you see, you're being hypocritical again. You are complaining about the business angle not being in good order then complaining they signed players primarily for the business rather than the team ?

 

At least, that is your view, but I don't agree.

 

I think Owen was signed as one of the few players able to fill the boots of Alan shearer, about to enter his last season as the clubs record goalscorer. I naturally therefore view it as good foresight and "planning", which should please some people although its a shame that just because they hate the fat b****** they are unable to see this deal or admit it for what it was.

 

One point, is that you are addressing the wrong person if you choose to have a go at the signing of Luque, the vast majority of people on here took the view that because he's a foreigner he must be good, but sadly for you I was the exact opposite, in fact I took one look at him on his debut and was absolutely slaughtered for writing him off as a complete waste of space.

 

Bobby Robson had been increasingly showing signs that age was catching up with him, by the way. And your point about Mourhino in the earlier post is incorrect. Bobby Robson didn't want him to come to Newcastle and succeed him, he wanted to bring him to the club as his number 2 as he had been previously in Portugal. Mourhinho turned it down because he wanted to be his own number 1.

 

 

 

I dont understand what is hypocritical. All im trying to say is that in my opinion Owen was signed in order to aid the business ie to drive season ticket sales which looked to be dwindling and not primarily to replace shearer. I think the same applies to Luque as well, i still dont understand why he was signed over Boa Morte when it was clear to everyoe that he was wanted first by Souness.

 

I dont understadn how other business mange to spend big and not compromise there wage structure as much as we ended up doing. Thats bad business in my mind.

 

The reason we operated like we did because there was no other way to attract these players, and Shephard et al ahd to gamble, thats why he negotiated Owen with that clause. Supposing Owen did stay fit, and scored plently, and we didnt qualify for Europe what a situation would that of been.

 

The point with Luque is that like you said, it did work, and there were people who thought "he was mint" and it drew people in. Season ticket holders and the crowds still came. When it was clear that Souness wanted Boa Morte why did we end up spending nearly twice as much on Luque for possibly double his wages....to draw in the punters and it worked. It wasnt for the best interests of the fottball team but for the business.

 

As for SBR and Mourihno, you are right, SBR wanted Mourihno to come in as his number 2 but in the light that he would eventually take over, but Mourihno thought he would nbever leave so opted to be his ownman.

[Thespence]

I think Owen was signed as one of the few players able to fill the boots of Alan shearer, about to enter his last season as the clubs record goalscorer. I naturally therefore view it as good foresight and "planning", which should please some people although its a shame that just because they hate the fat b****** they are unable to see this deal or admit it for what it was.

 

As one of the saddos who took timeout from their dinner break to see Michael at SJP on the historic day he joined us I cant remember meeting or speaking to anyone in the flesh who was disappointed on the day or days afterwards. Of course on the net there may of been a few people who doubted this transfer but these people doubt everything I am guessing.

[NE5]

Bit daft bringing up Luque considering the embarrassing defence of Alan Smith tbh.

 

Fredbob brought up Luque Dave, not me.

 

Standby the comment that Smith was good before his injury, same as Duff and Owen. Time will tell. Trend continued with Viduka and Barton too ie players who were good elsewhere but not here, so far.  All good players once. Johnny Averages like Geremi and Cacapa to supplement them don't help matters, still thats the standards that were set out by the new chairman who said they were "good business".

 

 

[NE5]

I think Owen was signed as one of the few players able to fill the boots of Alan shearer, about to enter his last season as the clubs record goalscorer. I naturally therefore view it as good foresight and "planning", which should please some people although its a shame that just because they hate the fat b****** they are unable to see this deal or admit it for what it was.

 

As one of the saddos who took timeout from their dinner break to see Michael at SJP on the historic day he joined us I cant remember meeting or speaking to anyone in the flesh who was disappointed on the day or days afterwards. Of course on the net there may of been a few people who doubted this transfer but these people doubt everything I am guessing.

 

precisely.

 

 

[NE5]

 

 

 

You are right about the debt. £45 million was repayable in instalments ending in 2016. The takeover triggered a clause in the loan agreement to the effect that the lender could call the debt in with 60 days notice. So Ashley got stuck with that. The other £30 million that Ashley put in was to satisfy the auditors that the club could carry on trading as a going concern. It was technically insolvent at 30th June 2007 so the auditors would have needed that assurance.

 

How much was the original loan?  I'm sure it wasn't much different to £45 million.

 

never mind mick. The top 4 who win all the trophies have debts of 1.5bn quid between them. I'm pleased you think we are in better shape than those 4 clubs and didn't waste any money in the transfer window

 

mackems.gif

 

How long have they been in debt to such an extent that they are now?

 

Typically stupid argument.

 

I've tried to explain the mess the club was in before they completely transformed it but you don't want to listen.

 

Your loss.

 

 

 

Was talking about the top 4. The stats that were released earlier show a business which categorically wasnt being run properly. This statement has nothing to do with thier ambition or transfer funds but the fact that they didnt stick to a sustainable business plan which is the norm for other clubs,

 

including the 87 or so who haven't qualified for europe as often as we did ? They have better "business plans" then 

 

You're missing the point though, we havent always operated this way, in fact we were more successful when we operated the normal way. Its apretty silly comparison to be honest.

 

It seems to me that Shephard et al were forced to open up the threshold on wages and transfers after the sacking of Bobby in orde to stir up interest for season ticket sales.

 

To me, the whole plan was akin to a person using one credit card to clear the debts off another credit card.

 

on the contrary, we operated in the "normal" way for over 30 years and ended up with one foot in the 3rd division, sub 20,000 crowds, and any half decent player that we managed to find somewhere down in the 4th division moved on to further their career, not to mention 3 local lads who all became major England players.

 

By "normal" i mean the standard accepted, ie with a wage bill which was ridiculously dispropoitnate to the clubs standings. There isnt a single successfull club in the world which had the wage figures that we did and the reason for this is that they are unsustainable.

 

I dont complain about debt in the sense that if we are £30m in debt if we spend £30m that makes us £60m in debt, thats by all accounts is the way that alot of people seem to view debt, i understand that clubs need to speculate in order to accumulate, but i think you miss the fact that the club had no choice but to risk the fututre of the club by extendeing the wage threshold in order to cover the fallacies of there decisions, which in turn put the future of the club at reasonable risk.

 

Shephard was in a situation where because of the poor decision he and the board had made, the season ticket revenue against which the loan for the sttadium was pinned against was dropping, he and the board were desperate capture the imagination of the season ticket holders by  attempting to cover up there poor decisions by firstly attempting to sign Wayne Rooney, then go on a lavish £50m spending spree, which (by putting  2 and 2 together and getting..) included shunning lesser options such as Boa Morte (undeniably Souness' first choice) and going on the lavish but expensive Luque which included lavish wages and silly transfer fee. The Anelka and Owen situation is a little clouded so i wont go into it but i believe honestly that the same applies here. When 20k people turned up for the signing of Owen shephard et al must of been licking thier lips. They had recouped the interest back in the team and had the interest payments for the loan susidised for another season.

 

Never in the past did any of our signings have to do more with the business that it did for the club. It was a calculated risk, and as far as i can see and forsee wouldnt of paid off.

 

To clarify, you are saying the club didn't focus enough on making a profit ie through handing their appointed manager a lot of money, then criticising moves to bring in another player or make other moves to increase spectator interest and generate more money ?

 

 

 

What? I never said anything about making a profit, i said the club didnt stick to the orthodox accepted plan, i.e 50% wage bill of revenue. Which to me suggests that they were forced to such extreme measure because of the poor decisions they made, ie the sacking of Bobby and replacement.

 

the only criticism i have of the signings were that 2 of them in my mind at least werent made in the interest of the playing  side of the team, but made for the sake of the business.

 

I'e Signing "foreigner so must be classy" Luque as opposed to signing "tried and tested so not very interesting Boa Morte" stoked up more interest so the fans obvioulsy came on board expecting a new era, ergo, season ticket sales increased and the clubs debts were tamed for antoher season.

 

The same financial risk was taken with Owen, we were forced to pay inflated wages for Owen because there was no other way to sign him, it was a mark of desperation to try and recoup interest for season ticket holders.

 

In my opinion the signing was made for the business primarily, not the first team, the circumstancial evidence would suggest the saem as well.

 

you see, you're being hypocritical again. You are complaining about the business angle not being in good order then complaining they signed players primarily for the business rather than the team ?

 

At least, that is your view, but I don't agree.

 

I think Owen was signed as one of the few players able to fill the boots of Alan shearer, about to enter his last season as the clubs record goalscorer. I naturally therefore view it as good foresight and "planning", which should please some people although its a shame that just because they hate the fat b****** they are unable to see this deal or admit it for what it was.

 

One point, is that you are addressing the wrong person if you choose to have a go at the signing of Luque, the vast majority of people on here took the view that because he's a foreigner he must be good, but sadly for you I was the exact opposite, in fact I took one look at him on his debut and was absolutely slaughtered for writing him off as a complete waste of space.

 

Bobby Robson had been increasingly showing signs that age was catching up with him, by the way. And your point about Mourhino in the earlier post is incorrect. Bobby Robson didn't want him to come to Newcastle and succeed him, he wanted to bring him to the club as his number 2 as he had been previously in Portugal. Mourhinho turned it down because he wanted to be his own number 1.

 

 

 

I dont understand what is hypocritical. All im trying to say is that in my opinion Owen was signed in order to aid the business ie to drive season ticket sales which looked to be dwindling and not primarily to replace shearer. I think the same applies to Luque as well, i still dont understand why he was signed over Boa Morte when it was clear to everyoe that he was wanted first by Souness.

 

I dont understadn how other business mange to spend big and not compromise there wage structure as much as we ended up doing. Thats bad business in my mind.

 

The reason we operated like we did because there was no other way to attract these players, and Shephard et al ahd to gamble,  thats why he negotiated Owen with that clause. Supposing Owen did stay fit, and scored plently, and we didnt qualify for Europe what a situation would that of been.

 

The point with Luque is  that like you said, it did work, and there were people who thought "he was mint" and it drew people in. Season ticket holders and the crowds still came. When it was clear that Souness wanted Boa Morte why did we end up spending nearly twice as much on Luque for possibly double his wages....to draw in the punters and it worked. It wasnt for the best interests of the fottball team but for the business.

 

As for SBR and Mourihno, you are right, SBR wanted Mourihno to come in as his number 2 but in the light that he would eventually take over, but Mourihno thought he would nbever leave so opted to be his ownman.

 

I think you'd be pretty hard pushed to find one person who renewed their season ticket because we had bought Albert Luque. Scraping your own barrel in desperation there fredbob.

 

Souness said that Luque was recommended to him by someone ie possibly Michael Robinson an ex colleague by the way, and he was a "proper player" etc etc and all the usual shite. Same as he also said when we bought Owen that he had handed the chairman a note with Owens name on as the player he most wanted to sign for the club.

 

Still, good job Shearer didn't want to leave the club, like some of his predecessors like Gazza, Beardsley and Waddle to further his ambitions because they knew they played for a shite club with a shite board, or we may have been well screwed. Attracting Owen too, in comparison. A major coup, I would say.

 

 

 

 

 

[Dave]

Bit daft bringing up Luque considering the embarrassing defence of Alan Smith tbh.

 

Fredbob brought up Luque Dave, not me.

 

Standby the comment that Smith was good before his injury, same as Duff and Owen. Time will tell. Trend continued with Viduka and Barton too ie players who were good elsewhere but not here, so far.  All good players once. Johnny Averages like Geremi and Cacapa to supplement them don't help matters, still thats the standards that were set out by the new chairman who said they were "good business".

 

 

 

Smith and Duff should be given a chance because of what they did for other clubs, yet you dismissed those who pointed out Luque was good for another club. And Geremi and Cacapa are now dismissed despite what they did for other clubs.

 

Spot the double standards.

[fredbob]

But would i be hard pushed to find people who renewed there tickets during the process of handing £50m to other clubs?

[NE5]

Bit daft bringing up Luque considering the embarrassing defence of Alan Smith tbh.

 

Fredbob brought up Luque Dave, not me.

 

Standby the comment that Smith was good before his injury, same as Duff and Owen. Time will tell. Trend continued with Viduka and Barton too ie players who were good elsewhere but not here, so far.  All good players once. Johnny Averages like Geremi and Cacapa to supplement them don't help matters, still thats the standards that were set out by the new chairman who said they were "good business".

 

 

 

Smith and Duff should be given a chance because of what they did for other clubs, yet you dismissed those who pointed out Luque was good for another club. And Geremi and Cacapa are now dismissed despite what they did for other clubs.

 

Spot the double standards.

 

not in the slightest.

 

I made a judgement of Luque the first time I saw him.

 

I judged him to be a waste of time and money.

 

It depends what you look for in players

 

We already knew about Duff, Smith, Owen. They had all been good players, in my view, with their previous clubs, especially Owen

 

 

[Baggio]

Bit daft bringing up Luque considering the embarrassing defence of Alan Smith tbh.

 

Fredbob brought up Luque Dave, not me.

 

Standby the comment that Smith was good before his injury, same as Duff and Owen. Time will tell. Trend continued with Viduka and Barton too ie players who were good elsewhere but not here, so far.  All good players once. Johnny Averages like Geremi and Cacapa to supplement them don't help matters, still thats the standards that were set out by the new chairman who said they were "good business".

 

 

 

Smith and Duff should be given a chance because of what they did for other clubs, yet you dismissed those who pointed out Luque was good for another club. And Geremi and Cacapa are now dismissed despite what they did for other clubs.

 

Spot the double standards.

 

Alan Smith has been shite for years, even before his leg break.

 

He had one good season about 7 years ago and has been average ever since.

[Dave]

Bit daft bringing up Luque considering the embarrassing defence of Alan Smith tbh.

 

Fredbob brought up Luque Dave, not me.

 

Standby the comment that Smith was good before his injury, same as Duff and Owen. Time will tell. Trend continued with Viduka and Barton too ie players who were good elsewhere but not here, so far.  All good players once. Johnny Averages like Geremi and Cacapa to supplement them don't help matters, still thats the standards that were set out by the new chairman who said they were "good business".

 

 

 

Smith and Duff should be given a chance because of what they did for other clubs, yet you dismissed those who pointed out Luque was good for another club. And Geremi and Cacapa are now dismissed despite what they did for other clubs.

 

Spot the double standards.

 

not in the slightest.

 

I made a judgement of Luque the first time I saw him.

 

I judged him to be a waste of time and money.

 

It depends what you look for in players

 

 

 

And plenty of others did exactly the same with Smith. Funny how you've gone quiet on that front.

 

No surprise to see you attribute the failures of Cacapa (multiple league title winner) and Geremi (multiple league title winner) to the new board and this imaginary policy btw. Fucking incredible.

 

But we're digressing. Carry on.

[Thespence]

Bit daft bringing up Luque considering the embarrassing defence of Alan Smith tbh.

 

Fredbob brought up Luque Dave, not me.

 

Standby the comment that Smith was good before his injury, same as Duff and Owen. Time will tell. Trend continued with Viduka and Barton too ie players who were good elsewhere but not here, so far.  All good players once. Johnny Averages like Geremi and Cacapa to supplement them don't help matters, still thats the standards that were set out by the new chairman who said they were "good business".

 

 

 

Smith and Duff should be given a chance because of what they did for other clubs, yet you dismissed those who pointed out Luque was good for another club. And Geremi and Cacapa are now dismissed despite what they did for other clubs.

 

Spot the double standards.

 

Alan Smith has been s**** for years, even before his leg break.

 

He had one good season about 7 years ago and has been average ever since.

 

Aye. He was decent when first made his name &  was a fooking beast against Roma last year for Mancs but apart from that I am struggling to think of him standing out.

[Parky]

Bit daft bringing up Luque considering the embarrassing defence of Alan Smith tbh.

 

Fredbob brought up Luque Dave, not me.

 

Standby the comment that Smith was good before his injury, same as Duff and Owen. Time will tell. Trend continued with Viduka and Barton too ie players who were good elsewhere but not here, so far.  All good players once. Johnny Averages like Geremi and Cacapa to supplement them don't help matters, still thats the standards that were set out by the new chairman who said they were "good business".

 

 

 

Smith and Duff should be given a chance because of what they did for other clubs, yet you dismissed those who pointed out Luque was good for another club. And Geremi and Cacapa are now dismissed despite what they did for other clubs.

 

Spot the double standards.

 

not in the slightest.

 

I made a judgement of Luque the first time I saw him.

 

I judged him to be a waste of time and money.

 

It depends what you look for in players

 

 

 

And plenty of others did exactly the same with Smith. Funny how you've gone quiet on that front.

 

No surprise to see you attribute the failures of Cacapa (multiple league title winner) and Geremi (multiple league title winner) to the new board and this imaginary policy btw. Fucking incredible.

 

But we're digressing. Carry on.

 

Cacapa and Geremi are over the hill tho Dave (both free iirc). Past success in football doesn't guarantee future success. As you/Baggy point out with Smith.

[Dave]

Cacapa and Geremi are over the hill tho Dave (both free iirc). Past success in football doesn't guarantee future success. As you/Baggy point out with Smith.

 

I don't disagree at all, with either the views on the players (though both can still play a part in keeping us up iyam) or the bit about past success. I'm simply making the point that IMO it's utter bullshit to blame their failures on the board, just as it is to defend Smith as you mention. Picking faults is all it is.

[Parky]

Cacapa and Geremi are over the hill tho Dave (both free iirc). Past success in football doesn't guarantee future success. As you/Baggy point out with Smith.

 

I don't disagree at all, with either the views on the players (though both can still play a part in keeping us up iyam) or the bit about past success. I'm simply making the point that IMO it's utter bullshit to blame their failures on the board, just as it is to defend Smith as you mention. Picking faults is all it is.

 

Fair enough.

[Thespence]

Cacapa and Geremi are over the hill tho Dave (both free iirc).

 

Tbf to Geremi at least he was bit of a regular for Chelsea last year. Cacrapper (very mature I know ) was well out of the picture at Lyon.

 

 

[Baggio]

Bit daft bringing up Luque considering the embarrassing defence of Alan Smith tbh.

 

Fredbob brought up Luque Dave, not me.

 

Standby the comment that Smith was good before his injury, same as Duff and Owen. Time will tell. Trend continued with Viduka and Barton too ie players who were good elsewhere but not here, so far.  All good players once. Johnny Averages like Geremi and Cacapa to supplement them don't help matters, still thats the standards that were set out by the new chairman who said they were "good business".

 

 

 

Smith and Duff should be given a chance because of what they did for other clubs, yet you dismissed those who pointed out Luque was good for another club. And Geremi and Cacapa are now dismissed despite what they did for other clubs.

 

Spot the double standards.

 

not in the slightest.

 

I made a judgement of Luque the first time I saw him.

 

I judged him to be a waste of time and money.

 

It depends what you look for in players

 

 

 

And plenty of others did exactly the same with Smith. Funny how you've gone quiet on that front.

 

No surprise to see you attribute the failures of Cacapa (multiple league title winner) and Geremi (multiple league title winner) to the new board and this imaginary policy btw. Fucking incredible.

 

But we're digressing. Carry on.

 

Cacapa and Geremi are over the hill tho Dave (both free iirc). Past success in football doesn't guarantee future success. As you/Baggy point out with Smith.

 

We had to pay Geremi a £2 million signing on fee to cover his drop in wages because Allardyce rated him so highly, I don't remember anyone saying he was over the hill back when we signed him either.

[Dave]

I remember a fair few people (including some non-NUFC members IIRC) saying they thought Geremi would go on to be one of the best value for money signings of the summer.

 

But hey, he's been shit. I blame the board. What stunning irony.

[Wullie]

I don't think Geremi's been anywhere near as bad as some people make out tbh. Still has something to offer imo.

[Dave]

I don't think Geremi's been anywhere near as bad as some people make out tbh. Still has something to offer imo.

 

Agree with that.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

I don't think Geremi's been anywhere near as bad as some people make out tbh. Still has something to offer imo.

 

As long as the "not-quite-far-enough" long throws don't make a return.

[Dave]

I don't think Geremi's been anywhere near as bad as some people make out tbh. Still has something to offer imo.

 

As long as the "not-quite-far-enough" long throws don't make a return.

 

I assuming (hoping) they were always an Allardyce idea. Hated them from day one.

[Baggio]

I don't think Geremi's been anywhere near as bad as some people make out tbh. Still has something to offer imo.

 

As long as the "not-quite-far-enough" long throws don't make a return.

 

I assuming (hoping) they were always an Allardyce idea. Hated them from day one.

 

The long throws and playing for set plays is Allardyce all over.

 

 

[Liam Liam Liam O]

I don't think Geremi's been anywhere near as bad as some people make out tbh. Still has something to offer imo.

 

As long as the "not-quite-far-enough" long throws don't make a return.

 

I assuming (hoping) they were always an Allardyce idea. Hated them from day one.

 

The long throws and playing for set plays is Allardyce the new board all over.

 

 

[Baggio]

I don't think Geremi's been anywhere near as bad as some people make out tbh. Still has something to offer imo.

 

As long as the "not-quite-far-enough" long throws don't make a return.

 

I assuming (hoping) they were always an Allardyce idea. Hated them from day one.

 

The long throws and playing for set plays is Allardyce the new board all over.

 

 

 

You could be right there.

[Parky]

Bit daft bringing up Luque considering the embarrassing defence of Alan Smith tbh.

 

Fredbob brought up Luque Dave, not me.

 

Standby the comment that Smith was good before his injury, same as Duff and Owen. Time will tell. Trend continued with Viduka and Barton too ie players who were good elsewhere but not here, so far.  All good players once. Johnny Averages like Geremi and Cacapa to supplement them don't help matters, still thats the standards that were set out by the new chairman who said they were "good business".

 

 

 

Smith and Duff should be given a chance because of what they did for other clubs, yet you dismissed those who pointed out Luque was good for another club. And Geremi and Cacapa are now dismissed despite what they did for other clubs.

 

Spot the double standards.

 

not in the slightest.

 

I made a judgement of Luque the first time I saw him.

 

I judged him to be a waste of time and money.

 

It depends what you look for in players

 

 

 

And plenty of others did exactly the same with Smith. Funny how you've gone quiet on that front.

 

No surprise to see you attribute the failures of Cacapa (multiple league title winner) and Geremi (multiple league title winner) to the new board and this imaginary policy btw. Fucking incredible.

 

But we're digressing. Carry on.

 

Cacapa and Geremi are over the hill tho Dave (both free iirc). Past success in football doesn't guarantee future success. As you/Baggy point out with Smith.

 

We had to pay Geremi a £2 million signing on fee to cover his drop in wages because Allardyce rated him so highly, I don't remember anyone saying he was over the hill back when we signed him either.

 

SBR did phone the club to tell them his legs had gawn.