NE5 Posted May 11, 2008 Share Posted May 11, 2008 owen to run his contract down if tomorrows rags are to be believed, ashley wont pay his current wage and he wont take a cut lets hope Ameobi is coming back from Stoke then, just to keep the books right. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syrette Posted May 11, 2008 Share Posted May 11, 2008 http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v146/deadreflection/facepalm.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted May 11, 2008 Share Posted May 11, 2008 http://www.dailystar.co.uk/posts/view/37422/Kev-s-ordered-to-copy-Weng Good news and bad news. If there's an ounce of truth in it, of course. Which I doubt. I feel like there is some truth to it. I think Keegan knew this is what he had to do from the outset and basically this is why he claimed we would be miles away from the top 4 and unable to challenge next year. I don't think he feels he can make as much rapid progress under these conditions i.e. building a younger squad. However, I am just as happy for us to make slower progress with a young talented squad and the idea of the likes of Veloso, Gomis, Nasri etc coming in excites me rather than the Crouches, Riises, Campbells etc. I think I'm with Ashley on this one. Yeah it might take a little longer but we'll get there eventually as long as we can get the right players in.It will be really refreshing to have some top young talent at the club for a change. The sensible approach - as usual - would be a compromise between the two. The two or three major signings Keegan has continually referred to are players that can go straight into the team. They might be young (Modric), but they're not youngsters in terms of being 'for the future'. The ideal solution is say six or seven signings, with half being the likes of Modric, and the others being some warm/hot prospects who can bulk out the squad. Think Nani at Man Utd. Nani and Anderson cost the best part of £30m did they not? I get your point though. IMO we might not see Nani type squad fillers, but maybe more like Tozer etc. and hopefully enough first choice players to make a difference... of course, this Tozer bloke is going to grow up and be the new Roy McFarland, because its "the plan". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted May 11, 2008 Share Posted May 11, 2008 Go to bed mate, you're embarrassing yourself. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted May 11, 2008 Share Posted May 11, 2008 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jq-PVWYAC38 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco Posted May 11, 2008 Share Posted May 11, 2008 http://www.dailystar.co.uk/posts/view/37422/Kev-s-ordered-to-copy-Weng Good news and bad news. If there's an ounce of truth in it, of course. Which I doubt. I feel like there is some truth to it. I think Keegan knew this is what he had to do from the outset and basically this is why he claimed we would be miles away from the top 4 and unable to challenge next year. I don't think he feels he can make as much rapid progress under these conditions i.e. building a younger squad. However, I am just as happy for us to make slower progress with a young talented squad and the idea of the likes of Veloso, Gomis, Nasri etc coming in excites me rather than the Crouches, Riises, Campbells etc. I think I'm with Ashley on this one. Yeah it might take a little longer but we'll get there eventually as long as we can get the right players in.It will be really refreshing to have some top young talent at the club for a change. The sensible approach - as usual - would be a compromise between the two. The two or three major signings Keegan has continually referred to are players that can go straight into the team. They might be young (Modric), but they're not youngsters in terms of being 'for the future'. The ideal solution is say six or seven signings, with half being the likes of Modric, and the others being some warm/hot prospects who can bulk out the squad. Think Nani at Man Utd. Nani and Anderson cost the best part of £30m did they not? I get your point though. IMO we might not see Nani type squad fillers, but maybe more like Tozer etc. and hopefully enough first choice players to make a difference... of course, this Tozer bloke is going to grow up and be the new Roy McFarland, because its "the plan". Love it when my posts get read completely out of context and inaccurately. Good night good sir... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaKa Posted May 11, 2008 Share Posted May 11, 2008 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jq-PVWYAC38 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
womblemaster Posted May 11, 2008 Share Posted May 11, 2008 seesm clear that keagan and ashley were in london signin up berbatov. or some other useful replacement for owen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaKa Posted May 11, 2008 Share Posted May 11, 2008 seesm clear that keagan and ashley were in london signin up berbatov. or some other useful replacement for owen. Maybe Anelka ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted May 11, 2008 Share Posted May 11, 2008 NE5: The question was a joke, you miserable old bugger. I thought that would be fairly obvious after you had asked me the same thing earlier. Rooney was going to cost a fair bit more than £17M though, wasn't he (the sum of Duff, Barton and Smith)? It's more apt to say would you rather have Rooney at £27M or whatever it was, than all of the players we signed in the summer this time around. Despite the failures of some of them, I still think that would have been the right way to go if we only had £27M to spend. It's a w*** argument as it is like, but I'm trying to work with what you're giving me here. Totally different timings and circumstances. As for you not criticising the club for signing "them" - has someone else been on your account since the summer, then? All we've heard from you is about "Johnny Averages" and "no ambition", which is the polar opposite stance of what others have taken in the past. The last board couldn't win with certain people on here and the current board can't win with certain people on here, I find the whole thing more amusing than anything else. At the end of the day all I want for the club is success and for it to keep existing, I don't care whether it comes one way or another, but I just hope it comes. That's why you don't tend to hear me moaning on too much these days, I've accepted that I've got no say in the grand scheme of things and I'm happy to ride the wave and see where it takes us. I'm happy Shepherd is gone simply because I thought the man was a c*** and that he'd had his time here, I have no qualms admitting that he had his good spells and he did a lot of good, but the club was sinking fast and he'd lost the fans. His position was untenable. He's just a man though, like Ashley is, like Mort is, it's the club that matters. not bad, some of what I said doesn't really look like I wanted.......look at it as meaning that even I can accept that every player can't cost 20m quid, and take it also as meaning that of course I'm aware that sometimes you find a gem for less money ...... Its the general attitude of the club, is what I'm talking about. As said in the other post, when players become available, players so good that you have to have, then you simply MUST try and get the money and get them. For a club like Newcastle, this is quite simply not a problem or shouldn't be a problem. The club is too big to be run on over stringent prudency, but it bothers me that the new board appear to be making noises that suggest this is what they are going to do. You should ALWAYS be looking at buying players for any position, better than what you have. It is what has led to the events of this week, and Keegan should know. I've never denied that Shepherd may have been a c*** sometimes, but basically I'm not bothered by off the field things, up to a point. I just don't care. I don't want a nice man running the club who doesn't have any ambition for it, I saw that for 30 years, many other clubs still have it. I just don't want it. I just want a board who back its manager and aim for real success, and I don't care who they are, what their backround is, or what they do, so long as they deliver this. This is what the successful clubs do. Chelsea fans don't care where Abramovic makes his money, ManU fans didn't care about Edwards and for the moment may not like the Glaziers but aren't making any noises because they are winning trophies too. Thanks for calling me a miserable old bugger ......... I'm neither, you young whippersnapper you .... Good post. I actually agree to some extent with alot of sentiment thats it that post but some of it regarding financial prudency is a bit unfair - esepcially as we have had substantials bits made for anumber of players. Well, if we bought a centre forward with more mobility than Viduka, say Ashton - a midfield player such as Modric would have been, and a centre back like Richard Dunne to go alongside Taylor and Faye and fight for places and give us strength in depth, I'd be fairly pleased with that for the moment. Then David Bentley came along and the club said he had spent his budget. Well, I would be unhappy with this. This is what I mean. Newcastle are too big to exercise such prudency. The spend would be worth it, and I'd be be dismayed to miss out on such a player and such an opportunity. This the difference between a truly ambitious club and a lesser one. Especially considering the ground we want to make up on the top teams. Also consider that a "sell to buy" policy is inappropriate in such circumstances too.I can accept that in this event, one or two players would go ie Milner and/or Duff if he doesn't come good, but you sort the books out later and get the player while you can. Again thats a fair point but id actually be more unhappy if it was the other way round and we missed out on Dunne, Ashton and Modric and got just Bentley instead. This is the crux of my argument. EDIT: well how do you sort the books out later if what you do doesnt lead to success and financial benefits - at which point would we call it time on our expenditure and look to sell or lower wages, that seems a bit contradictory. Especially as that is exactly the situation we were in when Ashley came in. There needs to be a compromise somehwere and for me the best way to do it is to stick to a given budget - as much as id hate to miss out on Bentley if he were to come available but we had already spent our lot on him then thats tough - theres is always next season adn there are always other players. fair enough, but essentially the truly successful clubs that win trophies would operate like that and buy Bentley. Thats my argument. Wenger is the one manager that has been able to operate differently but now that he is losing his best players, even he may come to the conclusion that he'll have to modify his stance And Arsenal now have a big debt due to building a new stadium, bad news for him eh ........ ring any bells ? the truly succesful clubs have the money to do that or the turnover to finance the debt or abramovic. maybe if we had built on our champs league appearances we'd be in liverpools place now. maybe, if it was spent well, but I hope you aren't criticising the club for spending money they don't have when you say that. theres a difference between spending money you don't have a being reckless Well I think buying Woodgate in January before anyone else knew he was available, ahead of the summer, was pretty smart going myself. yes it was........but not strengthening the midfield (bowyer) or forward line when in a position of strength on the field and financially was silly. after that they got very reckiless when not in a position to do so. you mean the manager got reckless ? and they backed their man ? Should have sacked him mind, but they backed their man, he was their choice, not mine or yours, but they backed their man. Shouldn't have appointed him. Back him or sack him. Thats the question. Every club faces it with every manager. If you want to talk about the debt, well very few clubs don't have debts, and when its due to a stadium expansion that you need, its a no brainer. Ask Arsenal and Liverpool THEY backed their man with money that wasn't THEIRS. I'm not saying the club might have went to the wall put the future of the club was being put in doubt (limited credit for the future) because of the position they were putting us in. their managerial appointments were far for the club worse than than giving a good manager a moderate ammount of cash. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted May 11, 2008 Share Posted May 11, 2008 I'm assuming you're drunk. Either that or a bot that just keys off certain words and ignores the rest of the post. OK Dave, I'd had a few - it was Saturday night and most people go out on Saturday nights - but the sentiments are correct. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted May 11, 2008 Share Posted May 11, 2008 NE5: The question was a joke, you miserable old bugger. I thought that would be fairly obvious after you had asked me the same thing earlier. Rooney was going to cost a fair bit more than £17M though, wasn't he (the sum of Duff, Barton and Smith)? It's more apt to say would you rather have Rooney at £27M or whatever it was, than all of the players we signed in the summer this time around. Despite the failures of some of them, I still think that would have been the right way to go if we only had £27M to spend. It's a w*** argument as it is like, but I'm trying to work with what you're giving me here. Totally different timings and circumstances. As for you not criticising the club for signing "them" - has someone else been on your account since the summer, then? All we've heard from you is about "Johnny Averages" and "no ambition", which is the polar opposite stance of what others have taken in the past. The last board couldn't win with certain people on here and the current board can't win with certain people on here, I find the whole thing more amusing than anything else. At the end of the day all I want for the club is success and for it to keep existing, I don't care whether it comes one way or another, but I just hope it comes. That's why you don't tend to hear me moaning on too much these days, I've accepted that I've got no say in the grand scheme of things and I'm happy to ride the wave and see where it takes us. I'm happy Shepherd is gone simply because I thought the man was a c*** and that he'd had his time here, I have no qualms admitting that he had his good spells and he did a lot of good, but the club was sinking fast and he'd lost the fans. His position was untenable. He's just a man though, like Ashley is, like Mort is, it's the club that matters. not bad, some of what I said doesn't really look like I wanted.......look at it as meaning that even I can accept that every player can't cost 20m quid, and take it also as meaning that of course I'm aware that sometimes you find a gem for less money ...... Its the general attitude of the club, is what I'm talking about. As said in the other post, when players become available, players so good that you have to have, then you simply MUST try and get the money and get them. For a club like Newcastle, this is quite simply not a problem or shouldn't be a problem. The club is too big to be run on over stringent prudency, but it bothers me that the new board appear to be making noises that suggest this is what they are going to do. You should ALWAYS be looking at buying players for any position, better than what you have. It is what has led to the events of this week, and Keegan should know. I've never denied that Shepherd may have been a c*** sometimes, but basically I'm not bothered by off the field things, up to a point. I just don't care. I don't want a nice man running the club who doesn't have any ambition for it, I saw that for 30 years, many other clubs still have it. I just don't want it. I just want a board who back its manager and aim for real success, and I don't care who they are, what their backround is, or what they do, so long as they deliver this. This is what the successful clubs do. Chelsea fans don't care where Abramovic makes his money, ManU fans didn't care about Edwards and for the moment may not like the Glaziers but aren't making any noises because they are winning trophies too. Thanks for calling me a miserable old bugger ......... I'm neither, you young whippersnapper you .... Good post. I actually agree to some extent with alot of sentiment thats it that post but some of it regarding financial prudency is a bit unfair - esepcially as we have had substantials bits made for anumber of players. Well, if we bought a centre forward with more mobility than Viduka, say Ashton - a midfield player such as Modric would have been, and a centre back like Richard Dunne to go alongside Taylor and Faye and fight for places and give us strength in depth, I'd be fairly pleased with that for the moment. Then David Bentley came along and the club said he had spent his budget. Well, I would be unhappy with this. This is what I mean. Newcastle are too big to exercise such prudency. The spend would be worth it, and I'd be be dismayed to miss out on such a player and such an opportunity. This the difference between a truly ambitious club and a lesser one. Especially considering the ground we want to make up on the top teams. Also consider that a "sell to buy" policy is inappropriate in such circumstances too.I can accept that in this event, one or two players would go ie Milner and/or Duff if he doesn't come good, but you sort the books out later and get the player while you can. Again thats a fair point but id actually be more unhappy if it was the other way round and we missed out on Dunne, Ashton and Modric and got just Bentley instead. This is the crux of my argument. EDIT: well how do you sort the books out later if what you do doesnt lead to success and financial benefits - at which point would we call it time on our expenditure and look to sell or lower wages, that seems a bit contradictory. Especially as that is exactly the situation we were in when Ashley came in. There needs to be a compromise somehwere and for me the best way to do it is to stick to a given budget - as much as id hate to miss out on Bentley if he were to come available but we had already spent our lot on him then thats tough - theres is always next season adn there are always other players. fair enough, but essentially the truly successful clubs that win trophies would operate like that and buy Bentley. Thats my argument. Wenger is the one manager that has been able to operate differently but now that he is losing his best players, even he may come to the conclusion that he'll have to modify his stance And Arsenal now have a big debt due to building a new stadium, bad news for him eh ........ ring any bells ? the truly succesful clubs have the money to do that or the turnover to finance the debt or abramovic. maybe if we had built on our champs league appearances we'd be in liverpools place now. maybe, if it was spent well, but I hope you aren't criticising the club for spending money they don't have when you say that. theres a difference between spending money you don't have a being reckless Well I think buying Woodgate in January before anyone else knew he was available, ahead of the summer, was pretty smart going myself. yes it was........but not strengthening the midfield (bowyer) or forward line when in a position of strength on the field and financially was silly. after that they got very reckiless when not in a position to do so. you mean the manager got reckless ? and they backed their man ? Should have sacked him mind, but they backed their man, he was their choice, not mine or yours, but they backed their man. Shouldn't have appointed him. Back him or sack him. Thats the question. Every club faces it with every manager. If you want to talk about the debt, well very few clubs don't have debts, and when its due to a stadium expansion that you need, its a no brainer. Ask Arsenal and Liverpool THEY backed their man with money that wasn't THEIRS. I'm not saying the club might have went to the wall put the future of the club was being put in doubt (limited credit for the future) because of the position they were putting us in. their managerial appointments were far for the club worse than than giving a good manager a moderate ammount of cash. who's money was it if it wasn't theirs ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted May 11, 2008 Share Posted May 11, 2008 NE5: The question was a joke, you miserable old bugger. I thought that would be fairly obvious after you had asked me the same thing earlier. Rooney was going to cost a fair bit more than £17M though, wasn't he (the sum of Duff, Barton and Smith)? It's more apt to say would you rather have Rooney at £27M or whatever it was, than all of the players we signed in the summer this time around. Despite the failures of some of them, I still think that would have been the right way to go if we only had £27M to spend. It's a w*** argument as it is like, but I'm trying to work with what you're giving me here. Totally different timings and circumstances. As for you not criticising the club for signing "them" - has someone else been on your account since the summer, then? All we've heard from you is about "Johnny Averages" and "no ambition", which is the polar opposite stance of what others have taken in the past. The last board couldn't win with certain people on here and the current board can't win with certain people on here, I find the whole thing more amusing than anything else. At the end of the day all I want for the club is success and for it to keep existing, I don't care whether it comes one way or another, but I just hope it comes. That's why you don't tend to hear me moaning on too much these days, I've accepted that I've got no say in the grand scheme of things and I'm happy to ride the wave and see where it takes us. I'm happy Shepherd is gone simply because I thought the man was a c*** and that he'd had his time here, I have no qualms admitting that he had his good spells and he did a lot of good, but the club was sinking fast and he'd lost the fans. His position was untenable. He's just a man though, like Ashley is, like Mort is, it's the club that matters. not bad, some of what I said doesn't really look like I wanted.......look at it as meaning that even I can accept that every player can't cost 20m quid, and take it also as meaning that of course I'm aware that sometimes you find a gem for less money ...... Its the general attitude of the club, is what I'm talking about. As said in the other post, when players become available, players so good that you have to have, then you simply MUST try and get the money and get them. For a club like Newcastle, this is quite simply not a problem or shouldn't be a problem. The club is too big to be run on over stringent prudency, but it bothers me that the new board appear to be making noises that suggest this is what they are going to do. You should ALWAYS be looking at buying players for any position, better than what you have. It is what has led to the events of this week, and Keegan should know. I've never denied that Shepherd may have been a c*** sometimes, but basically I'm not bothered by off the field things, up to a point. I just don't care. I don't want a nice man running the club who doesn't have any ambition for it, I saw that for 30 years, many other clubs still have it. I just don't want it. I just want a board who back its manager and aim for real success, and I don't care who they are, what their backround is, or what they do, so long as they deliver this. This is what the successful clubs do. Chelsea fans don't care where Abramovic makes his money, ManU fans didn't care about Edwards and for the moment may not like the Glaziers but aren't making any noises because they are winning trophies too. Thanks for calling me a miserable old bugger ......... I'm neither, you young whippersnapper you .... Good post. I actually agree to some extent with alot of sentiment thats it that post but some of it regarding financial prudency is a bit unfair - esepcially as we have had substantials bits made for anumber of players. Well, if we bought a centre forward with more mobility than Viduka, say Ashton - a midfield player such as Modric would have been, and a centre back like Richard Dunne to go alongside Taylor and Faye and fight for places and give us strength in depth, I'd be fairly pleased with that for the moment. Then David Bentley came along and the club said he had spent his budget. Well, I would be unhappy with this. This is what I mean. Newcastle are too big to exercise such prudency. The spend would be worth it, and I'd be be dismayed to miss out on such a player and such an opportunity. This the difference between a truly ambitious club and a lesser one. Especially considering the ground we want to make up on the top teams. Also consider that a "sell to buy" policy is inappropriate in such circumstances too.I can accept that in this event, one or two players would go ie Milner and/or Duff if he doesn't come good, but you sort the books out later and get the player while you can. Again thats a fair point but id actually be more unhappy if it was the other way round and we missed out on Dunne, Ashton and Modric and got just Bentley instead. This is the crux of my argument. EDIT: well how do you sort the books out later if what you do doesnt lead to success and financial benefits - at which point would we call it time on our expenditure and look to sell or lower wages, that seems a bit contradictory. Especially as that is exactly the situation we were in when Ashley came in. There needs to be a compromise somehwere and for me the best way to do it is to stick to a given budget - as much as id hate to miss out on Bentley if he were to come available but we had already spent our lot on him then thats tough - theres is always next season adn there are always other players. fair enough, but essentially the truly successful clubs that win trophies would operate like that and buy Bentley. Thats my argument. Wenger is the one manager that has been able to operate differently but now that he is losing his best players, even he may come to the conclusion that he'll have to modify his stance And Arsenal now have a big debt due to building a new stadium, bad news for him eh ........ ring any bells ? the truly succesful clubs have the money to do that or the turnover to finance the debt or abramovic. maybe if we had built on our champs league appearances we'd be in liverpools place now. maybe, if it was spent well, but I hope you aren't criticising the club for spending money they don't have when you say that. theres a difference between spending money you don't have a being reckless Well I think buying Woodgate in January before anyone else knew he was available, ahead of the summer, was pretty smart going myself. yes it was........but not strengthening the midfield (bowyer) or forward line when in a position of strength on the field and financially was silly. after that they got very reckiless when not in a position to do so. you mean the manager got reckless ? and they backed their man ? Should have sacked him mind, but they backed their man, he was their choice, not mine or yours, but they backed their man. Shouldn't have appointed him. Back him or sack him. Thats the question. Every club faces it with every manager. If you want to talk about the debt, well very few clubs don't have debts, and when its due to a stadium expansion that you need, its a no brainer. Ask Arsenal and Liverpool THEY backed their man with money that wasn't THEIRS. I'm not saying the club might have went to the wall put the future of the club was being put in doubt (limited credit for the future) because of the position they were putting us in. their managerial appointments were far for the club worse than than giving a good manager a moderate ammount of cash. who's money was it if it wasn't theirs ? the banks. how much of their own cash did they risk/put in ? (how much did they take out for that matter ? why is it all you can say is "they backed the manager" as if this was the be all and end all and gloss over the horrendous appointments they made latterly as manager ? not once, not twice but three of the fuckers ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredbob Posted May 11, 2008 Share Posted May 11, 2008 the banks. how much of their own cash did they risk/put in ? (how much did they take out for that matter ? why is it all you can say is "they backed the manager" as if this was the be all and end all and gloss over the horrendous appointments they made latterly as manager ? not once, not twice but three of the fuckers ? See what i wanna know is what is the difference between backing a terrible manager and not backing an excellent manager? To me they dont seem that conversely different. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianovthetoon Posted May 11, 2008 Share Posted May 11, 2008 You could argue that the old board backed their managers with Ashley's cash, as he's ended up paying off all the debt! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted May 11, 2008 Share Posted May 11, 2008 If he wins, there will be a canny few u-turns when these "trophy signings" walk through the door, thats for sure. The club is in an entirely different situation to what it was under Shepherd. Amongst other things, the club is now debt free and it is owned by a BILLIONAIRE, who is prepared to put his own money in to finance things, unlike before when it was owned by a group of people who were nowhere near as rich and were not prepared to back the club with their own money. It's not a u-turn to recommend to a tramp that he doesn't get a loan so he can spend a night at a posh hotel, then change your advice after the tramp wins the lottery. The situation has changed and the advice has changed accordingly. I know you know this, whether you're prepared to admit it publicly or not is another matter, so you can PM me your response if you want. howay man indi, you're one of the more intelligent types........ For starters, nobody has even explained who these "trophy players" are that we bought ......... nor has anybody said that the trophy winning teams don't have these "trophy players" - I take it they mean top quality players ? What is wrong with trying to get the best players you can, if you don't do that [and many clubs don't] whats the point of it all ? Real mediocrity is what you will get, a club in mid table or worse and not attempting to do better ? THAT is real mediocrity. What other sort of footballer wins you trophies, gets you into europe etc ? If thats your ambition, thats what you need. The only difference between Ashley and the old board, is he may be able to supply more of them [although even I am not demanding he does an Abramovic, just shows the ambition to get into the top spots, the club has the support to be self financing at that level if the manager makes good judgement]. My point was really about the u-turns comment, more than the trophy players part and as you acknowledge by saying: "The only difference between Ashley and the old board, is he may be able to supply more of them", the situation is vastly different now, to how it was under Shepherd, so it's not a u-turn to now be saying that if the club wants to be making a big leap forward, rather than gradual progress, it needs to be signing top quality players. Again, it's not a u-turn to say that to buy those players we will have to be willing to pay over the odds compared to the teams in European competition or based in London, the difference being we can afford to now, were we couldn't before. To address your point about "trophy players" - which I think we might have already discussed before, maybe, it was quite a while ago though - it all depends upon how you define what a trophy player is. In my view whether or not a player is a "trophy player" depends more on the club buying him than the player himself. If Man Utd or Chelsea buy the likes of Kaka, Rooney, Ronaldo, Tevez, Drogba, etc, then they are not buying a trophy player, they're buying a great player to add to their squad of other great players. But, if Bolton or Reading or Middlesborough, were to buy one of those players then they'd be clearly signing a trophy player, because none of the rest of their squad are anywhere near to being in the same league as those guys. If a club only makes one major signing in the summer because there was only one player available that could significantly improve their squad, then that's a sensible transfer policy. However, if a club blows it's entire transfer budget (and more) on one player that might significantly improve one position within it's squad, but leaves the gaping holes within the rest of its squad un-addressed and ends up scrabbling around for free transfers in a desperate bid to get bodies in, any bodies, then that is clearly, not a sensible transfer policy. If you want an example - and it's not already obvious who I'm talking about - then Michael Owen was a trophy signing for us. Yes, he improved the squad, yes now that he's free from injury he's showing his worth, but that doesn't detract from the fact that he was a trophy signing. The reasons why are as follows: 1. We had to spend a huge amount of money to sign him and pay well over the odds (double what Liverpool were prepared to offer, by most accounts) in order to make it impossible for him not to come here. 2. There were areas of our squad that needed attention a lot more than up front, the money could have been better spent addressing these areas. 3. Our squad was very small, we needed five or six additional players to be brought in over and above what we already had, with the money we spent on Owen we could have brought in a number of players of an acceptable standard rather than having to rely on a small group of players some of whom were woefully inadequate anyway. 4. I don't think we could afford to spend that kind of money at the time, let alone all on a single player. 5. I believe that the signing of Michael Owen was not primarily done for football reasons. Anyway, enough of that. Like you say "trophy players" are the players that we will need to sign to make a big leap forward, and if that's what we're intending to do then we should get them signed. "Them" is the important word in that sentence because if we are intending to make a giant leap for geordiekind then we need three or four of them, minimum, one or even two won't be enough. If however, the plan is for gradual improvement, then we should not sign any. The state of our squad at present is such that the addition of one high quality player will not turn us into contenders, to make only one big signing would indeed be a trophy signing and the money would be better spent on a number of lesser players and raise the overall level of our squad. What'll happen who knows!?! I guess we'll find out over the coming months. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted May 11, 2008 Share Posted May 11, 2008 Apologies if that's totally out of context now that the thread's moved on, I was going to read the rest of it (from pg14 to 26) but I can't be arsed now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted May 11, 2008 Share Posted May 11, 2008 I don't know why anybody bothers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Venkman Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 wow, a bit af sunshine tinged realism through the clouds and then BAM! he's back again Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alan Shearer 9 Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 Thatcher!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Consortium of one Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 Does Ashley record all his conversations and send them to the press? Absolutely amazing how these f****** idiots can get away with spouting whatever s*** they feel like while claiming it to be fact "Ashley thinks this", "Keegan was told do this or else".. complete and utter bollocks the lot of it! I rang up Mr. Ashley's office, got put on conference call and heard the whole meeting. I thought everyone did? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 I don't know why anybody bothers. I know why you don't. mackems.gif I'll reply to indi when I have more time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 the banks. how much of their own cash did they risk/put in ? (how much did they take out for that matter ? why is it all you can say is "they backed the manager" as if this was the be all and end all and gloss over the horrendous appointments they made latterly as manager ? not once, not twice but three of the fuckers ? See what i wanna know is what is the difference between backing a terrible manager and not backing an excellent manager? To me they dont seem that conversely different. oh dear. You have never been involved in recruitment have you fredbob ? Nobody employs someone they think is "terrible". Do you understand ? Madras, don't you understand the importance of backing the manager, do you not understand the significance of NOT backing a manager ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 Souness should have went iyam after that Chelsea game in his first season in charge. Nothing against the old board, as they did back the wrong horse so to speak. But they did back their man at the end of the day. I just think that Souness should have went after that Chelsea game. I don't want to be drawn into these debates but that's my opinion, also Shepherd gets a hell of a lot of stick round these parts and the Halls get off with a lot, at times for me it certainly felt that Shepherd was the mouthpiece for the Halls and was there to take a lot of the heat away from them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 Do you understand why this subject is boring as fuck, NE5? Don't think I haven't seen your attempts to get a bite over on Toontastic today. Shepherd has left. There's no need to continue sticking up for him and going around and around and around and around again. Locking this shite now. If anyone has a decent reason to unlock it, PM me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts