Chris Mort's departure confirmed. Derek Llambias is new Managing Director.

[NE5]

Where has this "tight ship" phrasing come from incidentally? Do facts escape you when in suits you?

 

(Modric - Woodgate) + (£30m transfers in the sumer) If reports are to be belived thats approximately £55m that would of left the clubs bank accounts in their years ownership had they all come off, which they didnt becasue of circumstances the board could do nothing about.

 

didn't realise we'd signed Woodgate and Modric

 

 

[Wullie]

I see ne5's truce with the board lasted long.

[fredbob]

Where has this "tight ship" phrasing come from incidentally? Do facts escape you when in suits you?

 

(Modric - Woodgate) + (£30m transfers in the sumer) If reports are to be belived thats approximately £55m that would of left the clubs bank accounts in their years ownership had they all come off, which they didnt becasue of circumstances the board could do nothing about.

 

didn't realise we'd signed Woodgate and Modric

 

 

 

 

We didnt - but thats hardly the sign of a tight ship if you're willing to part with nearly £60m in your first year in charge, yeh?

 

[NE5]

I see ne5's truce with the board lasted long.

 

nowt wrong with saying Mort is no big miss is there ?

 

 

 

[NE5]

Where has this "tight ship" phrasing come from incidentally? Do facts escape you when in suits you?

 

(Modric - Woodgate) + (£30m transfers in the sumer) If reports are to be belived thats approximately £55m that would of left the clubs bank accounts in their years ownership had they all come off, which they didnt becasue of circumstances the board could do nothing about.

 

didn't realise we'd signed Woodgate and Modric

 

 

 

 

We didnt - but thats hardly the sign of a tight ship if you're willing to part with nearly £60m in your first year in charge, yeh?

 

 

but they didn't.

 

 

[OzzieMandias]

Can't wait until we make a big signing, hopefully it'll shut a lot of people up

 

 

Need more than one

 

 

 

How many will it take to shut you up?

[NE5]

Can't wait until we make a big signing, hopefully it'll shut a lot of people up

 

 

Need more than one

 

 

How many will it take to shut you up?

 

in fact I'm trying to put up an objective and fair point of view.

 

I'm pretty sure that some people can see it, in fact I know already those that will.

 

 

 

 

[Guest Jawesome]

We need 5 or 6.  If you don't realize that then your f***ing retarded.

[fredbob]

Where has this "tight ship" phrasing come from incidentally? Do facts escape you when in suits you?

 

(Modric - Woodgate) + (£30m transfers in the sumer) If reports are to be belived thats approximately £55m that would of left the clubs bank accounts in their years ownership had they all come off, which they didnt becasue of circumstances the board could do nothing about.

 

didn't realise we'd signed Woodgate and Modric

 

 

 

 

We didnt - but thats hardly the sign of a tight ship if you're willing to part with nearly £60m in your first year in charge, yeh?

 

 

but they didn't.

 

 

 

So becasue we lost out on those targets that means we are running a "tight ship"?

 

Shit logic. You know it, yeh?

 

 

[OzzieMandias]

Can't wait until we make a big signing, hopefully it'll shut a lot of people up

 

 

Need more than one

 

 

How many will it take to shut you up?

 

in fact I'm trying to put up an objective and fair point of view.

 

 

 

 

mackems.gif

 

[UV]

Can't wait until we make a big signing, hopefully it'll shut a lot of people up

 

A big signing to appease the fans? Good idea, I like it, is that one of Mort's?

 

Where has this "tight ship" phrasing come from incidentally? Do facts escape you when in suits you?

 

(Modric - Woodgate) + (£30m transfers in the sumer) If reports are to be belived thats approximately £55m that would of left the clubs bank accounts in their years ownership had they all come off, which they didnt becasue of circumstances the board could do nothing about.

 

didn't realise we'd signed Woodgate and Modric

 

 

 

 

We didnt - but thats hardly the sign of a tight ship if you're willing to part with nearly £60m in your first year in charge, yeh?

 

 

but they didn't.

 

 

 

So becasue we lost out on those targets that means we are running a "tight ship"?

 

s*** logic. You know it, yeh?

 

 

 

this coming from someone who adds up the total cost of all the players we've been linked with and says look at how much we're willing to spend! 

[Wullie]

I see ne5's truce with the board lasted long.

 

nowt wrong with saying Mort is no big miss is there ?

 

 

 

 

Neither's Freddy Shepherd but you don't hear me wittling on about it like an old woman.

[Dave]

Are you going to admit you were wrong about Sidwell, NE5?

[fredbob]

Can't wait until we make a big signing, hopefully it'll shut a lot of people up

 

A big signing to appease the fans? Good idea, I like it, is that one of Mort's?

 

Where has this "tight ship" phrasing come from incidentally? Do facts escape you when in suits you?

 

(Modric - Woodgate) + (£30m transfers in the sumer) If reports are to be belived thats approximately £55m that would of left the clubs bank accounts in their years ownership had they all come off, which they didnt becasue of circumstances the board could do nothing about.

 

didn't realise we'd signed Woodgate and Modric

 

 

 

 

We didnt - but thats hardly the sign of a tight ship if you're willing to part with nearly £60m in your first year in charge, yeh?

 

 

but they didn't.

 

 

 

So becasue we lost out on those targets that means we are running a "tight ship"?

 

s*** logic. You know it, yeh?

 

 

 

this coming from someone who adds up the total cost of all the players we've been linked with and says look at how much we're willing to spend!   

 

Nope - i think you'll find they are the cost of all the players we've signed and players we've bid for....i.e (confirmed intention to spend)......nice try, better luck next time, yeh?

 

Sound logic.

 

Whereas saying we are running a tight ship because we missed out on 2 players isnt, yeh?

[UV]

Nope - i think you'll find they are the cost of all the players we've signed and players we've bid for....i.e (confirmed intention to spend)......nice try, better luck next time, yeh?

 

Sound logic.

 

Whereas saying we are running a tight ship because we missed out on 2 players isnt, yeh?

 

So we spent £30m net last Summer then?

[fredbob]

Nope - i think you'll find they are the cost of all the players we've signed and players we've bid for....i.e (confirmed intention to spend)......nice try, better luck next time, yeh?

 

Sound logic.

 

Whereas saying we are running a tight ship because we missed out on 2 players isnt, yeh?

 

So we spent £30m net last Summer then?

 

Change of tack?

[UV]

Nope - i think you'll find they are the cost of all the players we've signed and players we've bid for....i.e (confirmed intention to spend)......nice try, better luck next time, yeh?

 

Sound logic.

 

Whereas saying we are running a tight ship because we missed out on 2 players isnt, yeh?

 

So we spent £30m net last Summer then?

 

Change of tack?

 

Where has this "tight ship" phrasing come from incidentally? Do facts escape you when in suits you?

 

(Modric - Woodgate) + (£30m transfers in the sumer) If reports are to be belived thats approximately £55m that would of left the clubs bank accounts in their years ownership had they all come off, which they didnt becasue of circumstances the board could do nothing about.

[fredbob]

Nope - i think you'll find they are the cost of all the players we've signed and players we've bid for....i.e (confirmed intention to spend)......nice try, better luck next time, yeh?

 

Sound logic.

 

Whereas saying we are running a tight ship because we missed out on 2 players isnt, yeh?

 

So we spent £30m net last Summer then?

 

Change of tack?

 

Where has this "tight ship" phrasing come from incidentally? Do facts escape you when in suits you?

 

(Modric - Woodgate) + (£30m transfers in the sumer) If reports are to be belived thats approximately £55m that would of left the clubs bank accounts in their years ownership had they all come off, which they didnt becasue of circumstances the board could do nothing about.

 

So you like talking about net spend?

 

Well in that case - Mort and Ashley's net spend for a manager they didnt appoint was higher than Shepherd et al's average net spend for all there managers. Are you saying they ran a tight ship as well?

 

You're defining it by proxy - im not even taking into account the Modric and Woodgate bids. (approx. £25-27m)

 

EDIT: Im just not sure how you can criticise one board for running a tight ship by pulling out stats which are in actual fact better than the previous boards stats, how can you complain when you know no different? Or were you one of the rare ones who thought the old board were running a tight ship as well?

[UV]

Are you seriously comparing a net spend of around £10m last year, when even newly promoted sides were spending £40m, with an average from the last 10 or more years? Have you no concept of inflation? Are you totally unaware of the increased TV and ticket revenues these days?

[Mick]

 

No comments on the fact that the new chairman gets twice as much as the old chairman got criticised for taking despite presiding over the club's worst season in the premiership, sacking a manager mid season without a replacement lined up, and failing to land any of the new manager's transfer targets (all things the old chairman would surely have been crucified for)?

 

 

Can we have the first full season records of both and a reminder of the positions before both took over?

[fredbob]

Are you seriously comparing a net spend of around £10m last year, when even newly promoted sides were spending £40m, with an average from the last 10 or more years? Have you no concept of inflation? Are you totally unaware of the increased TV and ticket revenues these days?

 

So we're moving goal posts now? 

 

So i should be taking inflation, ticket and TV revenue and the efforts of one promoted team into account when assessing whether a new board is running a tight ship in the first year of its ownership, ignoring the bids for at least 2 major stars, ignoring the suitabilty of the manager in charge to have that money and ignoring the £100m (?) Ashley poured into the club to clear the debts which were clearly crippling us? Is that right?

 

All whilst ignoring the single most relevant fact that our net spend was higher than the average of its predeccessor. 

 

I think you have me mistaken (no suprise there) for someone who thinks the club spent enough - i dont, but i do object to silly claims that we were running a tight ship when its abundantly clear to anyone that we arent running a tight ship. Im sure ive pointed out enough evidence for you to accept this?

 

Surely? (I wont hold my breath)

 

 

[thomas]

Are you seriously comparing a net spend of around £10m last year, when even newly promoted sides were spending £40m, with an average from the last 10 or more years? Have you no concept of inflation? Are you totally unaware of the increased TV and ticket revenues these days?

Stating "When even newly promoted sides were spending ..." as though it was the norm.  What you really mean is "when Sunderland spent £40m" because no other promoted side, and few established ones, spent anywhere near that.

 

That's what you meant, isn't it?

 

Of course it is.

 

Does that mean that by pointing to Sunderland as a yardstick to measure transfers by you're backing their valuation of Chopra at 5m?  Keiran Richardson at 5.5?  Craig Gordon at 9m?  Remind me where they finished? 

[NE5]

I see ne5's truce with the board lasted long.

 

nowt wrong with saying Mort is no big miss is there ?

 

 

Neither's Freddy Shepherd but you don't hear me wittling on about it like an old woman.

 

didn't really want to do this, but all I've ever did is point out the Champions League positions, and the european qualifications, and only an old woman  ie like you would dismiss stone cold facts and kid yourself it never happened like you had Alzheimers

 

You can wittle on about any "opinion" you like but I'll stick with the facts if thats alright.

 

Back to the topic now ..........

 

Do we have a smillie for a slapped wrist 

[NE5]

Are you seriously comparing a net spend of around £10m last year, when even newly promoted sides were spending £40m, with an average from the last 10 or more years? Have you no concept of inflation? Are you totally unaware of the increased TV and ticket revenues these days?

Stating "When even newly promoted sides were spending ..." as though it was the norm.  What you really mean is "when Sunderland spent £40m" because no other promoted side, and few established ones, spent anywhere near that.

 

That's what you meant, isn't it?

 

Of course it is.

 

Does that mean that by pointing to Sunderland as a yardstick to measure transfers by you're backing their valuation of Chopra at 5m?  Keiran Richardson at 5.5?  Craig Gordon at 9m?  Remind me where they finished? 

 

they stayed up. You are losing sight of what it takes to succeed now, a point which UV is making quite well in fact.

 

 

[Dave]

Did you miss my post, NE5?