Mike Ashley To Be More Hands On

[Shak]

Longest holiday ever tbh.

[Guest pont-toon]

Edwards reckons he got this from a 'United source' then surely he's of the belief we won't be signing someone like Turan?  I wouldn't call 25 years of age 'young'.

 

Turan is 21.

 

19

 

No hes 21.

 

 

 

just spilt the difference and call it quits

[afar]

Edwards reckons he got this from a 'United source' then surely he's of the belief we won't be signing someone like Turan?  I wouldn't call 25 years of age 'young'.

 

Turan is 21.

 

19

 

No hes 21.

 

 

 

just spilt the difference and call it quits

 

Is this a Martins-esq age debate or does anyone have any hard evidence of how old this kid is ?

[thomas]

Going by the Turkish calendar yes he would be 21, however by Gregorian calendar standards we would call him 19.

[Yorkie]

Two weeks can't come soon enough.

[Kaizero]

Going by the Turkish calendar yes he would be 21, however by Gregorian calendar standards we would call him 19.

 

"Arda Turan, born January 30, 1987"

 

I'd say that makes him 21, no?

[Guest optimistic nit]

Going by the Turkish calendar yes he would be 21, however by Gregorian calendar standards we would call him 19.

 

"Arda Turan, born January 30, 1987"

 

I'd say that makes him 21, no?

 

thats only his birth date acording to the turkish calendar. 

 

he was born on 2nd May 1989 according to the gregorian calendar, due to the time difference between england and turkey.

 

 

trust me, i know about these things.

[colinmk]

As most people have said it's all good apart from the immediate points reduction imposed by retaining you know who.

[OzzieMandias]

What the hell has stadium enlargement got to do with transfer policy UV?  How about buying numerous players in there late twenties to early thirties for millions upon millions on massive wages and long contracts?  How about racking up £80 million of debt?, long term-ism that was it?

 

I agree 100% with the policy apparently being taken.  If you're going to spend big money on a player then you should try to find someone with quality who's young enough to play for the club for years but still have plenty of resale value should they want to leave or you want to sell them.  Its no good spending £10 million on a 29 year old and paying him £60,000 on a 4 year contract.  That's £22 million you're never going to see again on a player who might end up failing anyway.  We should certainly be open to any age of player at the right price and the right wages, but when looking to spend big we've got to look at young up and coming players IMO.

 

 

The downside of this policy is that it might take a couple of seasons before the results start to show on the pitch, but it's obviously better to lay some foundations than spunk our load on a "quick fix" whose legs are gone or a season-ticket-sales-booster who immediately gets crocked for a season. I have no problem with being patient. We'd certainly stopped going anywhere under the old way of doing things.

[ohmelads]

Is it necessarily such good news that a man with no footballing credentials to speak of would want to take a more hands-on approach at a football club? It's well rumoured that Chelsea lost Mourinho because of Abramovich getting 'hands-on' in his business, and Benitez left Valencia because the board wouldn't get off his case. If you believe Bobby Robson, Gary Speed was basically sold behind his manager's back by a rich chairman who decided he knew best.

 

Of course, there is logic in the idea that a billionaire who dedicates more time to our club could mean greater investment. But until we know more it's not necessarily something to be pleased about IMO

[Guest optimistic nit]

Is it necessarily such good news that a man with no footballing credentials to speak of would want to take a more hands-on approach at a football club? It's well rumoured that Chelsea lost Mourinho because of Abramovich getting 'hands-on' in his business, and Benitez left Valencia because the board wouldn't get off his case. If you believe Bobby Robson, Gary Speed was basically sold behind his manager's back by a rich chairman who decided he knew best.

 

Of course, there is logic in the idea that a billionaire who dedicates more time to our club could mean greater investment. But until we know more it's not necessarily something to be pleased about IMO

 

 

i think its a good thing. there's a difference between being hands on and interfearing with the manager's duties.

[Dave]

Is it necessarily such good news that a man with no footballing credentials to speak of would want to take a more hands-on approach at a football club? It's well rumoured that Chelsea lost Mourinho because of Abramovich getting 'hands-on' in his business, and Benitez left Valencia because the board wouldn't get off his case. If you believe Bobby Robson, Gary Speed was basically sold behind his manager's back by a rich chairman who decided he knew best.

 

Of course, there is logic in the idea that a billionaire who dedicates more time to our club could mean greater investment. But until we know more it's not necessarily something to be pleased about IMO

 

Where've you been mate? Top poster.

[Nobody]

Is it necessarily such good news that a man with no footballing credentials to speak of would want to take a more hands-on approach at a football club? It's well rumoured that Chelsea lost Mourinho because of Abramovich getting 'hands-on' in his business, and Benitez left Valencia because the board wouldn't get off his case. If you believe Bobby Robson, Gary Speed was basically sold behind his manager's back by a rich chairman who decided he knew best.

 

Of course, there is logic in the idea that a billionaire who dedicates more time to our club could mean greater investment. But until we know more it's not necessarily something to be pleased about IMO

 

Where've you been mate? Top poster.

[Dr Venkman]

Is it necessarily such good news that a man with no footballing credentials to speak of would want to take a more hands-on approach at a football club? It's well rumoured that Chelsea lost Mourinho because of Abramovich getting 'hands-on' in his business, and Benitez left Valencia because the board wouldn't get off his case. If you believe Bobby Robson, Gary Speed was basically sold behind his manager's back by a rich chairman who decided he knew best.

 

Of course, there is logic in the idea that a billionaire who dedicates more time to our club could mean greater investment. But until we know more it's not necessarily something to be pleased about IMO

 

 

i think its a good thing. there's a difference between being hands on and interfearing with the manager's duties.

 

this

[UV]

Is it necessarily such good news that a man with no footballing credentials to speak of would want to take a more hands-on approach at a football club? It's well rumoured that Chelsea lost Mourinho because of Abramovich getting 'hands-on' in his business, and Benitez left Valencia because the board wouldn't get off his case. If you believe Bobby Robson, Gary Speed was basically sold behind his manager's back by a rich chairman who decided he knew best.

 

Of course, there is logic in the idea that a billionaire who dedicates more time to our club could mean greater investment. But until we know more it's not necessarily something to be pleased about IMO

 

 

i think its a good thing. there's a difference between being hands on and interfearing with the manager's duties.

 

this

 

Is dictating the transfer policy as alleged in this report (eg ditching Barton and vetoing transfers due to age) not interfering with the manager's duties?

[TRon]

Is it necessarily such good news that a man with no footballing credentials to speak of would want to take a more hands-on approach at a football club? It's well rumoured that Chelsea lost Mourinho because of Abramovich getting 'hands-on' in his business, and Benitez left Valencia because the board wouldn't get off his case. If you believe Bobby Robson, Gary Speed was basically sold behind his manager's back by a rich chairman who decided he knew best.

 

Of course, there is logic in the idea that a billionaire who dedicates more time to our club could mean greater investment. But until we know more it's not necessarily something to be pleased about IMO

 

What I'd say in his favour is that Ashley seems to have appointed some pretty useful staff in Keegan as manager so far, Vetere as talent-spotter. Wise and Jiinez I don't really know much about, but in answer to your question, how many club owners have football credentials in the first place?

 

 

[Guest optimistic nit]

Is it necessarily such good news that a man with no footballing credentials to speak of would want to take a more hands-on approach at a football club? It's well rumoured that Chelsea lost Mourinho because of Abramovich getting 'hands-on' in his business, and Benitez left Valencia because the board wouldn't get off his case. If you believe Bobby Robson, Gary Speed was basically sold behind his manager's back by a rich chairman who decided he knew best.

 

Of course, there is logic in the idea that a billionaire who dedicates more time to our club could mean greater investment. But until we know more it's not necessarily something to be pleased about IMO

 

 

i think its a good thing. there's a difference between being hands on and interfearing with the manager's duties.

 

this

 

Is dictating the transfer policy as alleged in this report (eg ditching Barton and vetoing transfers due to age) not interfering with the manager's duties?

 

it says no such thing.

[UV]

How are you reading these bits?

 

However, they have only raised the issue with his advisers and will not make a final decision about whether to terminate his contract until after he has been tried in another court case.

 

Nevertheless, Keegan has been told by Ashley that he wants a long-term approach taken, rather than simply a few quick fixes before the start of the new season. That would appear to rule out moves for senior internationals, with the Magpies concentrating on signing young, emerging players instead of established stars who are coming to the end of their careers.

 

I read them as potentially ditching Barton and vetoing transfers due to age.

[TRon]

How are you reading these bits?

 

However, they have only raised the issue with his advisers and will not make a final decision about whether to terminate his contract until after he has been tried in another court case.

 

Nevertheless, Keegan has been told by Ashley that he wants a long-term approach taken, rather than simply a few quick fixes before the start of the new season. That would appear to rule out moves for senior internationals, with the Magpies concentrating on signing young, emerging players instead of established stars who are coming to the end of their careers.

 

I read them as potentially ditching Barton and vetoing transfers due to age.

 

Maybe you need to re-read it.

 

 

[Guest Heneage]

Going by the Turkish calendar yes he would be 21, however by Gregorian calendar standards we would call him 19.

 

"Arda Turan, born January 30, 1987"

 

I'd say that makes him 21, no?

 

thats only his birth date acording to the turkish calendar. 

 

he was born on 2nd May 1989 according to the gregorian calendar, due to the time difference between england and turkey.

 

 

trust me, i know about these things.

Is there a "Nigerian" Calender n all explain Oba?

[UV]

How are you reading these bits?

 

However, they have only raised the issue with his advisers and will not make a final decision about whether to terminate his contract until after he has been tried in another court case.

 

Nevertheless, Keegan has been told by Ashley that he wants a long-term approach taken, rather than simply a few quick fixes before the start of the new season. That would appear to rule out moves for senior internationals, with the Magpies concentrating on signing young, emerging players instead of established stars who are coming to the end of their careers.

 

I read them as potentially ditching Barton and vetoing transfers due to age.

 

Maybe you need to re-read it.

 

 

 

Maybe I do, perhaps you could help me by explaining what the bits I've bolded mean?

[TRon]

How are you reading these bits?

 

However, they have only raised the issue with his advisers and will not make a final decision about whether to terminate his contract until after he has been tried in another court case.

 

Nevertheless, Keegan has been told by Ashley that he wants a long-term approach taken, rather than simply a few quick fixes before the start of the new season. That would appear to rule out moves for senior internationals, with the Magpies concentrating on signing young, emerging players instead of established stars who are coming to the end of their careers.

 

I read them as potentially ditching Barton and vetoing transfers due to age.

 

Maybe you need to re-read it.

 

 

 

Maybe I do, perhaps you could help me by explaining what the bits I've bolded mean?

 

Try reading the bits you didn't bold.

 

 

[thomas]

How are you reading these bits?

 

However, they have only raised the issue with his advisers and will not make a final decision about whether to terminate his contract until after he has been tried in another court case.

 

Nevertheless, Keegan has been told by Ashley that he wants a long-term approach taken, rather than simply a few quick fixes before the start of the new season. That would appear to rule out moves for senior internationals, with the Magpies concentrating on signing young, emerging players instead of established stars who are coming to the end of their careers.

 

I read them as potentially ditching Barton and vetoing transfers due to age.

 

Maybe you need to re-read it.

 

 

 

Maybe I do, perhaps you could help me by explaining what the bits I've bolded mean?

Terminating Bartons contract is hardly dictating transfer policy (as per your statement "Is dictating the transfer policy as alleged in this report (eg ditching Barton and vetoing transfers due to age) not interfering with the manager's duties?") as much as it is common sense and perhaps even a contractual obligation. 

 

Nor does it say he would specifically veto anything based on age, merely that a long term approach to development would be taken. 

 

There are so many shades of grey painting everything that I'm wondering how you see it in such black and white terms.

 

edit: no pun intended.  Anyone making mention of it will be shot on sight.  Thank you.

[OzzieMandias]

Is it necessarily such good news that a man with no footballing credentials to speak of would want to take a more hands-on approach at a football club?

 

According to the linked story, he is doing so at Keegan's suggestion. If KK thinks it's a good idea then it's fine by me. And it doesn't necessarily mean he'll be "hands-on" in a Shepherd -- or an Abramovich -- kind of way.

[sicsfingeredmong]

Is it necessarily such good news that a man with no footballing credentials to speak of would want to take a more hands-on approach at a football club?

 

According to the linked story, he is doing so at Keegan's suggestion. If KK thinks it's a good idea then it's fine by me. And it doesn't necessarily mean he'll be "hands-on" in a Shepherd -- or an Abramovich -- kind of way.

 

Ambitiously landing top-line players, based on the suggestion/wishes of the manager....... even if that suggestion to the chairman appears via a hand-scrawled note passed across an office/conference room desk.