Ashley has failed Newcastle United.

[Baggio]

If we go down it is Mort and Ashley's fault no one else's. Discuss.

 

Rubbish.

 

The fault is the man who employed Souness followed by Roeder followed by Allardyce.  If Shepherd had employed a top European manager after Robson, to take over an excellent group of players, we would have moved forward and upwards. Instead, Souness was given the job.

 

Ashley and Mort would have to take some responsibility if we go down. Ashley bought the club in the summer and it was his decision to keep Allardyce on and then not give him much financial backing. This was despite the fact that many clubs around us were investing more heavily. It was also Ashley/Mort's decision to adopt a cautious approach in the transfer market so that players were sold before players came in resulting in transfer targets being missed. It was Ashley/Mort's decision to sack the manager despite not having a replacement lined up. And when their first choice turned them down it was their decision to take the risk of appointing a manager who hadn't managed a club for 3 years. And it was their decision to do this in a transfer window at a time when the club was not mathematically safe from relegation.

 

Whatever anyone may think of those decisions Ashley and Mort have to held responsible for the consequences of making them. 

 

and there you have it.

 

Although some people would watch us sliding down to the 3rd division and just as long as he doesn't call our women dogs or say we are idiots for buying 40 quid shirts [i mean who is daft enough to pay 40 quid for a football shirt] then he'll be better chairman and owner  than the fat b****** and the Halls.

 

 

Just for the record I didn't intend my post to be a ringing endorsement of the old board by the way. It's just a list of decisions Ashley/Mort have made that have imo played a huge part in where we find ourselves now. Some of the more "questionable" decisions they have made are almost direct repeats of decisions made by the old board that (admittedly with hindsight) we now know to have been highly damaging mistakes.

 

I know. I don't deliberately intend myself to make ringing endorsements of the old board either, but just by pointing out that the things they did do right maybe suggests they did a lot more things that were right than people realise, or in some cases, are prepared to admit and I don't mean you.

 

I just agree with you completely that, for better or worse, its been Ashleys club since last summer so its all been his responsibility ever since.

 

If he didn't want Allardyce he should have replaced him, or backed him. It was his choice.

 

 

he did back him to the tune of what the previous board did on average didn't he ?

 

he also backed him more than Gordon McKeag but didn't break the world transfer record

 

 

did fat fred break the record every season ? no so why should ashley.

 

 

telll you what, put your stats where your gob is and post the season on season net spend since shepherd took over then we'll compare.

 

I added to the last post.

 

I'm not interested in "net" spend. For starters, the clubs have more money now. I'm more bothered about the clubs league positions

 

The last board rose to the challenge of their competitors/rivals and beat most of them, by virtue of qualifying for europe more than all of them bar 4. 

 

Ashley has to do the same.

 

 

 

I thought you said a board can only back their manager?

 

If Ashley spends in the transfer market and we don't get into the top 4 then that will be down to Keegan being sub standard compared to the better managers in the league.

[madras]

If we go down it is Mort and Ashley's fault no one else's. Discuss.

 

Rubbish.

 

The fault is the man who employed Souness followed by Roeder followed by Allardyce.  If Shepherd had employed a top European manager after Robson, to take over an excellent group of players, we would have moved forward and upwards. Instead, Souness was given the job.

 

Ashley and Mort would have to take some responsibility if we go down. Ashley bought the club in the summer and it was his decision to keep Allardyce on and then not give him much financial backing. This was despite the fact that many clubs around us were investing more heavily. It was also Ashley/Mort's decision to adopt a cautious approach in the transfer market so that players were sold before players came in resulting in transfer targets being missed. It was Ashley/Mort's decision to sack the manager despite not having a replacement lined up. And when their first choice turned them down it was their decision to take the risk of appointing a manager who hadn't managed a club for 3 years. And it was their decision to do this in a transfer window at a time when the club was not mathematically safe from relegation.

 

Whatever anyone may think of those decisions Ashley and Mort have to held responsible for the consequences of making them. 

 

and there you have it.

 

Although some people would watch us sliding down to the 3rd division and just as long as he doesn't call our women dogs or say we are idiots for buying 40 quid shirts [i mean who is daft enough to pay 40 quid for a football shirt] then he'll be better chairman and owner  than the fat b****** and the Halls.

 

 

Just for the record I didn't intend my post to be a ringing endorsement of the old board by the way. It's just a list of decisions Ashley/Mort have made that have imo played a huge part in where we find ourselves now. Some of the more "questionable" decisions they have made are almost direct repeats of decisions made by the old board that (admittedly with hindsight) we now know to have been highly damaging mistakes.

 

I know. I don't deliberately intend myself to make ringing endorsements of the old board either, but just by pointing out that the things they did do right maybe suggests they did a lot more things that were right than people realise, or in some cases, are prepared to admit and I don't mean you.

 

I just agree with you completely that, for better or worse, its been Ashleys club since last summer so its all been his responsibility ever since.

 

If he didn't want Allardyce he should have replaced him, or backed him. It was his choice.

 

 

he did back him to the tune of what the previous board did on average didn't he ?

 

he also backed him more than Gordon McKeag but didn't break the world transfer record

 

 

did fat fred break the record every season ? no so why should ashley.

 

 

telll you what, put your stats where your gob is and post the season on season net spend since shepherd took over then we'll compare.

 

I added to the last post.

 

I'm not interested in "net" spend. For starters, the clubs have more money now. I'm more bothered about the clubs league position.

 

The last board rose to the challenge of their competitors/rivals and beat most of them and qualified for europe more than all of them bar 4.  Ashley has to do the same.

 

 

 

How can you say you're not interested in net spend when you've been banging on about it all season?

 

 

If we go down it is Mort and Ashley's fault no one else's. Discuss.

 

Rubbish.

 

The fault is the man who employed Souness followed by Roeder followed by Allardyce.  If Shepherd had employed a top European manager after Robson, to take over an excellent group of players, we would have moved forward and upwards. Instead, Souness was given the job.

 

Ashley and Mort would have to take some responsibility if we go down. Ashley bought the club in the summer and it was his decision to keep Allardyce on and then not give him much financial backing. This was despite the fact that many clubs around us were investing more heavily. It was also Ashley/Mort's decision to adopt a cautious approach in the transfer market so that players were sold before players came in resulting in transfer targets being missed. It was Ashley/Mort's decision to sack the manager despite not having a replacement lined up. And when their first choice turned them down it was their decision to take the risk of appointing a manager who hadn't managed a club for 3 years. And it was their decision to do this in a transfer window at a time when the club was not mathematically safe from relegation.

 

Whatever anyone may think of those decisions Ashley and Mort have to held responsible for the consequences of making them. 

 

and there you have it.

 

Although some people would watch us sliding down to the 3rd division and just as long as he doesn't call our women dogs or say we are idiots for buying 40 quid shirts [i mean who is daft enough to pay 40 quid for a football shirt] then he'll be better chairman and owner  than the fat b****** and the Halls.

 

 

Just for the record I didn't intend my post to be a ringing endorsement of the old board by the way. It's just a list of decisions Ashley/Mort have made that have imo played a huge part in where we find ourselves now. Some of the more "questionable" decisions they have made are almost direct repeats of decisions made by the old board that (admittedly with hindsight) we now know to have been highly damaging mistakes.

 

I know. I don't deliberately intend myself to make ringing endorsements of the old board either, but just by pointing out that the things they did do right maybe suggests they did a lot more things that were right than people realise, or in some cases, are prepared to admit and I don't mean you.

 

I just agree with you completely that, for better or worse, its been Ashleys club since last summer so its all been his responsibility ever since.

 

If he didn't want Allardyce he should have replaced him, or backed him. It was his choice.

 

 

he did back him to the tune of what the previous board did on average didn't he ?

 

he also backed him more than Gordon McKeag but didn't break the world transfer record

 

 

did fat fred break the record every season ? no so why should ashley.

 

 

telll you what, put your stats where your gob is and post the season on season net spend since shepherd took over then we'll compare.

 

I added to the last post.

 

I'm not interested in "net" spend. For starters, the clubs have more money now. I'm more bothered about the clubs league positions

 

The last board rose to the challenge of their competitors/rivals and beat most of them, by virtue of qualifying for europe more than all of them bar 4. 

 

Ashley has to do the same.

 

 

right then,lets keep it equal if it's not by backing but league position they shall be judged (talk about moving the posts) then ashley will have to have as long before judging him.

[Baggio]

right then,lets keep it equal if it's not by backing but league position they shall be judged (talk about moving the posts) then ashley will have to have as long before judging him.

 

Having spent years saying it was backing the manager that was all that mattered and defending shite appointments like Souness and Roeder using it he now changes to the league position.

 

You really couldn't make it up.

[NE5]

If we go down it is Mort and Ashley's fault no one else's. Discuss.

 

Rubbish.

 

The fault is the man who employed Souness followed by Roeder followed by Allardyce.  If Shepherd had employed a top European manager after Robson, to take over an excellent group of players, we would have moved forward and upwards. Instead, Souness was given the job.

 

Ashley and Mort would have to take some responsibility if we go down. Ashley bought the club in the summer and it was his decision to keep Allardyce on and then not give him much financial backing. This was despite the fact that many clubs around us were investing more heavily. It was also Ashley/Mort's decision to adopt a cautious approach in the transfer market so that players were sold before players came in resulting in transfer targets being missed. It was Ashley/Mort's decision to sack the manager despite not having a replacement lined up. And when their first choice turned them down it was their decision to take the risk of appointing a manager who hadn't managed a club for 3 years. And it was their decision to do this in a transfer window at a time when the club was not mathematically safe from relegation.

 

Whatever anyone may think of those decisions Ashley and Mort have to held responsible for the consequences of making them. 

 

and there you have it.

 

Although some people would watch us sliding down to the 3rd division and just as long as he doesn't call our women dogs or say we are idiots for buying 40 quid shirts [i mean who is daft enough to pay 40 quid for a football shirt] then he'll be better chairman and owner  than the fat b****** and the Halls.

 

 

Just for the record I didn't intend my post to be a ringing endorsement of the old board by the way. It's just a list of decisions Ashley/Mort have made that have imo played a huge part in where we find ourselves now. Some of the more "questionable" decisions they have made are almost direct repeats of decisions made by the old board that (admittedly with hindsight) we now know to have been highly damaging mistakes.

 

I know. I don't deliberately intend myself to make ringing endorsements of the old board either, but just by pointing out that the things they did do right maybe suggests they did a lot more things that were right than people realise, or in some cases, are prepared to admit and I don't mean you.

 

I just agree with you completely that, for better or worse, its been Ashleys club since last summer so its all been his responsibility ever since.

 

If he didn't want Allardyce he should have replaced him, or backed him. It was his choice.

 

 

he did back him to the tune of what the previous board did on average didn't he ?

 

he also backed him more than Gordon McKeag but didn't break the world transfer record

 

 

did fat fred break the record every season ? no so why should ashley.

 

 

telll you what, put your stats where your gob is and post the season on season net spend since shepherd took over then we'll compare.

 

I added to the last post.

 

I'm not interested in "net" spend. For starters, the clubs have more money now. I'm more bothered about the clubs league position.

 

The last board rose to the challenge of their competitors/rivals and beat most of them and qualified for europe more than all of them bar 4.  Ashley has to do the same.

 

 

 

How can you say you're not interested in net spend when you've been banging on about it all season?

 

 

If we go down it is Mort and Ashley's fault no one else's. Discuss.

 

Rubbish.

 

The fault is the man who employed Souness followed by Roeder followed by Allardyce.  If Shepherd had employed a top European manager after Robson, to take over an excellent group of players, we would have moved forward and upwards. Instead, Souness was given the job.

 

Ashley and Mort would have to take some responsibility if we go down. Ashley bought the club in the summer and it was his decision to keep Allardyce on and then not give him much financial backing. This was despite the fact that many clubs around us were investing more heavily. It was also Ashley/Mort's decision to adopt a cautious approach in the transfer market so that players were sold before players came in resulting in transfer targets being missed. It was Ashley/Mort's decision to sack the manager despite not having a replacement lined up. And when their first choice turned them down it was their decision to take the risk of appointing a manager who hadn't managed a club for 3 years. And it was their decision to do this in a transfer window at a time when the club was not mathematically safe from relegation.

 

Whatever anyone may think of those decisions Ashley and Mort have to held responsible for the consequences of making them. 

 

and there you have it.

 

Although some people would watch us sliding down to the 3rd division and just as long as he doesn't call our women dogs or say we are idiots for buying 40 quid shirts [i mean who is daft enough to pay 40 quid for a football shirt] then he'll be better chairman and owner  than the fat b****** and the Halls.

 

 

Just for the record I didn't intend my post to be a ringing endorsement of the old board by the way. It's just a list of decisions Ashley/Mort have made that have imo played a huge part in where we find ourselves now. Some of the more "questionable" decisions they have made are almost direct repeats of decisions made by the old board that (admittedly with hindsight) we now know to have been highly damaging mistakes.

 

I know. I don't deliberately intend myself to make ringing endorsements of the old board either, but just by pointing out that the things they did do right maybe suggests they did a lot more things that were right than people realise, or in some cases, are prepared to admit and I don't mean you.

 

I just agree with you completely that, for better or worse, its been Ashleys club since last summer so its all been his responsibility ever since.

 

If he didn't want Allardyce he should have replaced him, or backed him. It was his choice.

 

 

he did back him to the tune of what the previous board did on average didn't he ?

 

he also backed him more than Gordon McKeag but didn't break the world transfer record

 

 

did fat fred break the record every season ? no so why should ashley.

 

 

telll you what, put your stats where your gob is and post the season on season net spend since shepherd took over then we'll compare.

 

I added to the last post.

 

I'm not interested in "net" spend. For starters, the clubs have more money now. I'm more bothered about the clubs league positions

 

The last board rose to the challenge of their competitors/rivals and beat most of them, by virtue of qualifying for europe more than all of them bar 4. 

 

Ashley has to do the same.

 

right then,lets keep it equal if it's not by backing but league position they shall be judged (talk about moving the posts) then ashley will have to have as long before judging him.

 

of course, but if we go down then it will set them back massively, and if that happens it is because they got it all wrong last summer.

 

It doesn't take a blind man to see most of those players we brought in weren't as good as the players our main rivals were bringing in, while at the same time we fell down the "spending" league.

 

madras, mort has been banging on all season about putting books in order and exercising good economy and other stuff like this. He's a bean counter. And people agreed with him [under the delusion that everything the old board did was shite]. But football just doesn't work like this. You have to take risks, and a club like Newcastle should be taking advantage of its fanbase. The old board did it as much as possible and so far the new board hasn't.

 

BTW, I'm not moving any goalposts. The league positions and backing managers are linked. If we don't back him as much as our major rivals, he hasn't a cat in hells chance of matching them.

 

 

[madras]

NE5...the books had to be put in order,the more I see the more I think how bad things were getting financially. I posted as much a while back when you stated that Mna utd et al aren't worried by their debt etc to which I responded that they were turning massive operating profits and we weren't....i don't believe you got back to me on how much debt you thought it was wise for us to carry while not making profits ?

[NE5]

NE5...the books had to be put in order,the more I see the more I think how bad things were getting financially. I posted as much a while back when you stated that Mna utd et al aren't worried by their debt etc to which I responded that they were turning massive operating profits and we weren't....i don't believe you got back to me on how much debt you thought it was wise for us to carry while not making profits ?

 

I'm not denying the club needed to slow down, I'm one of the few people who defend them for not going for broke in the summer of 2003 having spent a fortune to qualify in the first place. Yet people complain the club had accumulated debts then say we should have spent money in the summer of 2003 that we didn't have ?

 

I said I recognised that the ex board had maybe gone as far as they could, which was a long way forward in the end. I recognised that as other clubs have new owners, we possibly needed similar to keep pace. So its up to the new owner to do that. So far, they haven't done it.

 

It doesn't change the fact that if they don't show the ambition of our rivals, we won't keep up with them, never mind beat them.

 

 

 

 

[Mick]

 

of course, but if we go down then it will set them back massively, and if that happens it is because they got it all wrong last summer.

 

It doesn't take a blind man to see most of those players we brought in weren't as good as the players our main rivals were bringing in, while at the same time we fell down the "spending" league.

 

madras, mort has been banging on all season about putting books in order and exercising good economy and other stuff like this. He's a bean counter. And people agreed with him [under the delusion that everything the old board did was s****]. But football just doesn't work like this. You have to take risks, and a club like Newcastle should be taking advantage of its fanbase. The old board did it as much as possible and so far the new board hasn't.

 

BTW, I'm not moving any goalposts. The league positions and backing managers are linked. If we don't back him as much as our major rivals, he hasn't a cat in hells chance of matching them.

 

 

 

Honestly, the phrase "talking to the wall" applies to nobody better than you.

 

Allardyce, a manager you wanted had funds to spend on players and he decided that the players which he brought in were the players that he wanted. Nobody told him that he couldn't spend and nobody told him that he could only buy players for a certain amount of money, he decided who came in and the quality of the players that he wanted.

 

Mort had no option but to put the books in order, we had a loan for £45 million which had to be paid back within 60 days of the club being sold.

 

You talk about the old board taking advantage of its fan-base, you're taking the piss. They ran up over £100 million of debt because they couldn't make the right decisions at the right time and thought Souness was the man to hand almost £50 million over to spend.

 

This club has been going backwards since the day Souness was appointed and it's been down-hill ever since, who is to blame for that?

[fredbob]

Mort and Ashley, probably.

[Baggio]

NE5...the books had to be put in order,the more I see the more I think how bad things were getting financially. I posted as much a while back when you stated that Mna utd et al aren't worried by their debt etc to which I responded that they were turning massive operating profits and we weren't....i don't believe you got back to me on how much debt you thought it was wise for us to carry while not making profits ?

 

I'm not denying the club needed to slow down, I'm one of the few people who defend them for not going for broke in the summer of 2003 having spent a fortune to qualify in the first place. Yet people complain the club had accumulated debts then say we should have spent money in the summer of 2003 that we didn't have ?

 

I said I recognised that the ex board had maybe gone as far as they could, which was a long way forward in the end. I recognised that as other clubs have new owners, we possibly needed similar to keep pace. So its up to the new owner to do that. So far, they haven't done it.

 

It doesn't change the fact that if they don't show the ambition of our rivals, we won't keep up with them, never mind beat them.

 

 

 

 

 

The majority of the clubs debts that was crippling us were ran up after 2003 with Souness and a boom in wages for qualifying for the CL, yet for some reason they didn't drop down, up until then the club was being ran well with only the debt of the stadium expansion which was affordable as the extra seats were generating more revenue as intended.

 

The club didn't spend in 2003 because the Halls got the club to buy back shares so they could pocket £4.5 million.

[Mick]

 

 

I'm not denying the club needed to slow down, I'm one of the few people who defend them for not going for broke in the summer of 2003 having spent a fortune to qualify in the first place. Yet people complain the club had accumulated debts then say we should have spent money in the summer of 2003 that we didn't have ?

 

I said I recognised that the ex board had maybe gone as far as they could, which was a long way forward in the end. I recognised that as other clubs have new owners, we possibly needed similar to keep pace. So its up to the new owner to do that. So far, they haven't done it.

 

It doesn't change the fact that if they don't show the ambition of our rivals, we won't keep up with them, never mind beat them.

 

 

 

We might not have had the debts now if we'd invested more when we were on our way up rather than waiting until we were going in the other direction again.

 

Money buys you better players when you have more to offer than a high salary.

 

What can we offer ambitious players now other than money?  How do we get a player to come here rather than a team playing in Europe?

 

[Mick]

Mort and Ashley, probably.

 

 

Probably.

[Parky]

 

 

I'm not denying the club needed to slow down, I'm one of the few people who defend them for not going for broke in the summer of 2003 having spent a fortune to qualify in the first place. Yet people complain the club had accumulated debts then say we should have spent money in the summer of 2003 that we didn't have ?

 

I said I recognised that the ex board had maybe gone as far as they could, which was a long way forward in the end. I recognised that as other clubs have new owners, we possibly needed similar to keep pace. So its up to the new owner to do that. So far, they haven't done it.

 

It doesn't change the fact that if they don't show the ambition of our rivals, we won't keep up with them, never mind beat them.

 

 

 

We might not have had the debts now if we'd invested more when we were on our way up rather than waiting until we were going in the other direction again.

 

Money buys you better players when you have more to offer than a high salary.

 

What can we offer ambitious players now other than money?  How do we get a player to come here rather than a team playing in Europe?

 

 

The first step to attracting better players is getting a top tier manager who players can believe in.

[Sima]

 

Down with embedded quoting tbh

[Dave]

It can be limited but that's just boring.

[NE5]

 

 

I'm not denying the club needed to slow down, I'm one of the few people who defend them for not going for broke in the summer of 2003 having spent a fortune to qualify in the first place. Yet people complain the club had accumulated debts then say we should have spent money in the summer of 2003 that we didn't have ?

 

I said I recognised that the ex board had maybe gone as far as they could, which was a long way forward in the end. I recognised that as other clubs have new owners, we possibly needed similar to keep pace. So its up to the new owner to do that. So far, they haven't done it.

 

It doesn't change the fact that if they don't show the ambition of our rivals, we won't keep up with them, never mind beat them.

 

 

 

We might not have had the debts now if we'd invested more when we were on our way up rather than waiting until we were going in the other direction again.

 

 

 

and it might not. As people keep saying, look at Leeds.

 

I prefer to look at manu myself, but you can't slate the club for overspending - like you do - then slate them for not spending.

 

Of course, we all know that your REAL gripe is because the chairman called you nasty names and so nothing he ever did was going to be right after hurting your little feelings so badly.

 

 

[madras]

NE5...the books had to be put in order,the more I see the more I think how bad things were getting financially. I posted as much a while back when you stated that Mna utd et al aren't worried by their debt etc to which I responded that they were turning massive operating profits and we weren't....i don't believe you got back to me on how much debt you thought it was wise for us to carry while not making profits ?

 

I'm not denying the club needed to slow down, I'm one of the few people who defend them for not going for broke in the summer of 2003 having spent a fortune to qualify in the first place. Yet people complain the club had accumulated debts then say we should have spent money in the summer of 2003 that we didn't have ?

 

I said I recognised that the ex board had maybe gone as far as they could, which was a long way forward in the end. I recognised that as other clubs have new owners, we possibly needed similar to keep pace. So its up to the new owner to do that. So far, they haven't done it.

 

It doesn't change the fact that if they don't show the ambition of our rivals, we won't keep up with them, never mind beat them.

 

 

 

 

surely this quote is contradictory. at one point you say they were right not to spend cos they didn't have the money yet you'll have a go at the new regime for not spending more then fat fred at a time when they debts were a lot higher.

 

 

you do like your cake don't you.

[NE5]

NE5...the books had to be put in order,the more I see the more I think how bad things were getting financially. I posted as much a while back when you stated that Mna utd et al aren't worried by their debt etc to which I responded that they were turning massive operating profits and we weren't....i don't believe you got back to me on how much debt you thought it was wise for us to carry while not making profits ?

 

I'm not denying the club needed to slow down, I'm one of the few people who defend them for not going for broke in the summer of 2003 having spent a fortune to qualify in the first place. Yet people complain the club had accumulated debts then say we should have spent money in the summer of 2003 that we didn't have ?

 

I said I recognised that the ex board had maybe gone as far as they could, which was a long way forward in the end. I recognised that as other clubs have new owners, we possibly needed similar to keep pace. So its up to the new owner to do that. So far, they haven't done it.

 

It doesn't change the fact that if they don't show the ambition of our rivals, we won't keep up with them, never mind beat them.

 

 

 

 

surely this quote is contradictory. at one point you say they were right not to spend cos they didn't have the money yet you'll have a go at the new regime for not spending more then fat fred at a time when they debts were a lot higher.

 

 

you do like your cake don't you.

 

not in the slightest. When the new board have shown they have ambition for the club, if they do, like the old board did, then they will get the benefit of the doubt when they make mistakes. Which I have said earlier.

 

We are in a serious position, do you realise this ? And why do you dispute the reason for it is down to the amount of Johnny average players we brought in last summer, when the chairman quite clearly stated that replacing one player with three of them was "good business".

 

That attitude is right back to the days of Westwood, McKeag etc mate, and the ridiculous thing is all the people who think that everything the fat bastard did was wrong on account of him eating all the pies or something, including attempting to bring quality players to the club like the trophy winners do, agreed with Morts comments.

 

Since when has buying mediocre players and operating on budget levels lower than your main rivals ever built successful clubs ?

 

What a load of crap.

 

 

[Guest alex]

Howay man Leazes, it's more akin to selling Woodgate and saying that was 'good business'.

[madras]

NE5...the books had to be put in order,the more I see the more I think how bad things were getting financially. I posted as much a while back when you stated that Mna utd et al aren't worried by their debt etc to which I responded that they were turning massive operating profits and we weren't....i don't believe you got back to me on how much debt you thought it was wise for us to carry while not making profits ?

 

I'm not denying the club needed to slow down, I'm one of the few people who defend them for not going for broke in the summer of 2003 having spent a fortune to qualify in the first place. Yet people complain the club had accumulated debts then say we should have spent money in the summer of 2003 that we didn't have ?

 

I said I recognised that the ex board had maybe gone as far as they could, which was a long way forward in the end. I recognised that as other clubs have new owners, we possibly needed similar to keep pace. So its up to the new owner to do that. So far, they haven't done it.

 

It doesn't change the fact that if they don't show the ambition of our rivals, we won't keep up with them, never mind beat them.

 

 

 

 

surely this quote is contradictory. at one point you say they were right not to spend cos they didn't have the money yet you'll have a go at the new regime for not spending more then fat fred at a time when they debts were a lot higher.

 

 

you do like your cake don't you.

 

not in the slightest. When the new board have shown they have ambition for the club, if they do, like the old board did, then they will get the benefit of the doubt when they make mistakes. Which I have said earlier.

 

We are in a serious position, do you realise this ? And why do you dispute the reason for it is down to the amount of Johnny average players we brought in last summer, when the chairman quite clearly stated that replacing one player with three of them was "good business".

 

That attitude is right back to the days of Westwood, McKeag etc mate, and the ridiculous thing is all the people who think that everything the fat b****** did was wrong on account of him eating all the pies or something, including attempting to bring quality players to the club like the trophy winners do, agreed with Morts comments.

 

Since when has buying mediocre players and operating on budget levels lower than your main rivals ever built successful clubs ?

 

What a load of crap.

 

 

they spent as much on average in the summer as the previous regime and the manager said money was there in january (fee agreed with boro for woodgate) which would have been more in one season than the previous one spent net in the majority of their seasons.

[NE5]

NE5...the books had to be put in order,the more I see the more I think how bad things were getting financially. I posted as much a while back when you stated that Mna utd et al aren't worried by their debt etc to which I responded that they were turning massive operating profits and we weren't....i don't believe you got back to me on how much debt you thought it was wise for us to carry while not making profits ?

 

I'm not denying the club needed to slow down, I'm one of the few people who defend them for not going for broke in the summer of 2003 having spent a fortune to qualify in the first place. Yet people complain the club had accumulated debts then say we should have spent money in the summer of 2003 that we didn't have ?

 

I said I recognised that the ex board had maybe gone as far as they could, which was a long way forward in the end. I recognised that as other clubs have new owners, we possibly needed similar to keep pace. So its up to the new owner to do that. So far, they haven't done it.

 

It doesn't change the fact that if they don't show the ambition of our rivals, we won't keep up with them, never mind beat them.

 

 

 

 

surely this quote is contradictory. at one point you say they were right not to spend cos they didn't have the money yet you'll have a go at the new regime for not spending more then fat fred at a time when they debts were a lot higher.

 

 

you do like your cake don't you.

 

not in the slightest. When the new board have shown they have ambition for the club, if they do, like the old board did, then they will get the benefit of the doubt when they make mistakes. Which I have said earlier.

 

We are in a serious position, do you realise this ? And why do you dispute the reason for it is down to the amount of Johnny average players we brought in last summer, when the chairman quite clearly stated that replacing one player with three of them was "good business".

 

That attitude is right back to the days of Westwood, McKeag etc mate, and the ridiculous thing is all the people who think that everything the fat b****** did was wrong on account of him eating all the pies or something, including attempting to bring quality players to the club like the trophy winners do, agreed with Morts comments.

 

Since when has buying mediocre players and operating on budget levels lower than your main rivals ever built successful clubs ?

 

What a load of crap.

 

 

they spent as much on average in the summer as the previous regime and the manager said money was there in january (fee agreed with boro for woodgate) which would have been more in one season than the previous one spent net in the majority of their seasons.

 

Well, as all the bad buys in the past were all the fault of the fat bastard, I presume nothing has changed

 

Edit. This has been done, and explained by more people than me that we have slipped down the spending league, I'll leave it to yourself to work out why, or find it.

 

 

 

 

 

[madras]

NE5...the books had to be put in order,the more I see the more I think how bad things were getting financially. I posted as much a while back when you stated that Mna utd et al aren't worried by their debt etc to which I responded that they were turning massive operating profits and we weren't....i don't believe you got back to me on how much debt you thought it was wise for us to carry while not making profits ?

 

I'm not denying the club needed to slow down, I'm one of the few people who defend them for not going for broke in the summer of 2003 having spent a fortune to qualify in the first place. Yet people complain the club had accumulated debts then say we should have spent money in the summer of 2003 that we didn't have ?

 

I said I recognised that the ex board had maybe gone as far as they could, which was a long way forward in the end. I recognised that as other clubs have new owners, we possibly needed similar to keep pace. So its up to the new owner to do that. So far, they haven't done it.

 

It doesn't change the fact that if they don't show the ambition of our rivals, we won't keep up with them, never mind beat them.

 

 

 

 

surely this quote is contradictory. at one point you say they were right not to spend cos they didn't have the money yet you'll have a go at the new regime for not spending more then fat fred at a time when they debts were a lot higher.

 

 

you do like your cake don't you.

 

not in the slightest. When the new board have shown they have ambition for the club, if they do, like the old board did, then they will get the benefit of the doubt when they make mistakes. Which I have said earlier.

 

We are in a serious position, do you realise this ? And why do you dispute the reason for it is down to the amount of Johnny average players we brought in last summer, when the chairman quite clearly stated that replacing one player with three of them was "good business".

 

That attitude is right back to the days of Westwood, McKeag etc mate, and the ridiculous thing is all the people who think that everything the fat b****** did was wrong on account of him eating all the pies or something, including attempting to bring quality players to the club like the trophy winners do, agreed with Morts comments.

 

Since when has buying mediocre players and operating on budget levels lower than your main rivals ever built successful clubs ?

 

What a load of crap.

 

 

they spent as much on average in the summer as the previous regime and the manager said money was there in january (fee agreed with boro for woodgate) which would have been more in one season than the previous one spent net in the majority of their seasons.

 

Well, as all the bad buys in the past were all the fault of the fat b******, I presume nothing has changed

 

 

i never said that

[Dave]

Hooray! Madras sees the light.

[NE5]

NE5...the books had to be put in order,the more I see the more I think how bad things were getting financially. I posted as much a while back when you stated that Mna utd et al aren't worried by their debt etc to which I responded that they were turning massive operating profits and we weren't....i don't believe you got back to me on how much debt you thought it was wise for us to carry while not making profits ?

 

I'm not denying the club needed to slow down, I'm one of the few people who defend them for not going for broke in the summer of 2003 having spent a fortune to qualify in the first place. Yet people complain the club had accumulated debts then say we should have spent money in the summer of 2003 that we didn't have ?

 

I said I recognised that the ex board had maybe gone as far as they could, which was a long way forward in the end. I recognised that as other clubs have new owners, we possibly needed similar to keep pace. So its up to the new owner to do that. So far, they haven't done it.

 

It doesn't change the fact that if they don't show the ambition of our rivals, we won't keep up with them, never mind beat them.

 

 

 

 

surely this quote is contradictory. at one point you say they were right not to spend cos they didn't have the money yet you'll have a go at the new regime for not spending more then fat fred at a time when they debts were a lot higher.

 

 

you do like your cake don't you.

 

not in the slightest. When the new board have shown they have ambition for the club, if they do, like the old board did, then they will get the benefit of the doubt when they make mistakes. Which I have said earlier.

 

We are in a serious position, do you realise this ? And why do you dispute the reason for it is down to the amount of Johnny average players we brought in last summer, when the chairman quite clearly stated that replacing one player with three of them was "good business".

 

That attitude is right back to the days of Westwood, McKeag etc mate, and the ridiculous thing is all the people who think that everything the fat b****** did was wrong on account of him eating all the pies or something, including attempting to bring quality players to the club like the trophy winners do, agreed with Morts comments.

 

Since when has buying mediocre players and operating on budget levels lower than your main rivals ever built successful clubs ?

 

What a load of crap.

 

 

they spent as much on average in the summer as the previous regime and the manager said money was there in january (fee agreed with boro for woodgate) which would have been more in one season than the previous one spent net in the majority of their seasons.

 

Well, as all the bad buys in the past were all the fault of the fat b******, I presume nothing has changed

 

 

i never said that

 

I've lost count of the number who have, but you do appear to agree with them.

 

 

[NE5]

Howay man Leazes, it's more akin to selling Woodgate and saying that was 'good business'.

 

Selling woodgate probably was, in view of his fitness record and future prospects. I didn't say that if we hadn't got him back it wouldn't have been a good deal by the way, now he appears to have got over his problems.  Its the comments and apparent attitude coming out of the club which I'm commenting on, along with the abysmal dealings of last summer to compound the comments at the time.

 

 

 

 

[dcmk]

Howay man Leazes, it's more akin to selling Woodgate and saying that was 'good business'.

 

Selling woodgate probably was, in view of his fitness record and future prospects. I didn't say that if we hadn't got him back it wouldn't have been a good deal by the way, now he appears to have got over his problems.  Its the comments and apparent attitude coming out of the club which I'm commenting on, along with the abysmal dealings of last summer to compound the comments at the time.

 

 

 

 

 

Allardyce chose the players he wanted - he weren't even appointed by Ashley.  Allardyce said himself there was money to spend!

Old board you couldnt exactly say they let there managers have full control - Rooney bid!?  Kluivert?!