Coloccini and Ashley's Evil Master Plan (Mua Ha Ha..)

[johnnypd]

i think he wants the club to run as a self-sufficient entity that won't impact upon his or his other business's finances, which means no money from his pockets, no spending before we receive money, no speculate to accumulate, no short-term debt for investments etc. will also see a trimming of expenses like wages or even matchday suits, not many big fees spent, and rougly a one-in, one-out policy on transfers. hence the whinging about it being an expensive seat to sit in and the call for others to put their money into the club. this way he can turn up on matchday and not have to worry about the club at other times.

 

the net spend on transfers is very worrying at this point, (as it turned out, Coloccini's move was funded by Milner's sale, on balance we've spent little to nothing since ashley arrived), as is the fact he feels the backroom set-up (buy cheap, sell high) is more important than the first team 'coach'. the likes of Jiminez who are there to get us deals like the one that landed us Jonas i'd guess are an exercise in saving money - it's worth the small initial outlay as they'll save you more money than you've spent on one deal, never mind a dozen. for transfers that means it won't happen if the deal is not right for us. not neccessarily bad - but - it means that our criteria for transfers will be based on present and future finance, not just the quality of the player, which will inevitably see us miss out on targets. i also don't necessarily agree with it as, being a midtable side with nothing special to offer, we have to go that extra mile to bring players in. and i'd take a stab that the money saved by using Jiminez will not be allocated toward other transfers. ie - just cos we got guthrie and jonas for £10m less than their worth doesn't mean that £10m is going to go on other transfers, if we feel a club is asking £5m too much for a top drawer player, i think we'd rather miss out than spend half of what we saved elsewhere. just an opinion of course, but one i feel is backed up by reality.

 

what this means for the team -  i think we'll end up in and around the likes of portsmouth or blackburn, and ashley will put more emphasis on doing well in cups rather than in the league. because it doesn't take so much to go on a brave cup run every other year, while breaking into the top four demands real investment.

 

no doubt he also wants the club to make a profit and sees player development and future sales from this as one means of achieveing that profit. i also think he is betting on the market value of premiership clubs increasing in the next few years. i don't think he particularly wants to sell and wouldnt sell on a deal that would give him his money back as he feels 3 years down the line he can get better. i think the only thing that might change this is if fan discontent effects his enjoyment in which case he might take a 'money-back' offer.

 

basically, he is the sam allardyce of club owners -  boring, works to a strict budget, focused on the long-term sometimes at the expense of the present, poor at PR, obsessed with 'systems'.

 

Doesn't that contradict one of the basic arguments of the Ashley critics, i.e. we are operating on a buy to sell policy? Coloccini was signed before Milner's sale.

 

In any case, if you were looking purely from a profit point of view, why spend £10m on an international centre half from a major league? For a third of that you could probably buy a defender from Africa "with potential" and a good re-sale value.

 

i said all summer we'd probably see one 'big' signing and i think coloccini was it. i think the potential thing is a general policy that you can see through our other transfers more so. at that point i thought the board was beginning to show some balls, but almost immediately Faye left, and it started going downhill again.

 

even thought we spent nothing, i think we couldve afforded to spend much more, and even with the financial constraints imposed by the board i think we couldve spet more. quite why we didn't i don't know, but that's 3 windows in a row now and it's becoming a bit of a theme. personally i don't think this is much of a time for a tightening of the purse strings - no debt repayments, extra tv money, 3 year season tickets, other clubs spending more and more. with a good scouting network (and a good manager 2 weeks ago) there's no reason why we shouldn't be spending as we can ensure we'll get the best out of our money. not putting the funds in means it more of 5 steps forward 4 steps back.

[madras]

i think he wants the club to run as a self-sufficient entity that won't impact upon his or his other business's finances, which means no money from his pockets, no spending before we receive money, no speculate to accumulate, no short-term debt for investments etc. will also see a trimming of expenses like wages or even matchday suits, not many big fees spent, and rougly a one-in, one-out policy on transfers. hence the whinging about it being an expensive seat to sit in and the call for others to put their money into the club. this way he can turn up on matchday and not have to worry about the club at other times.

 

the net spend on transfers is very worrying at this point, (as it turned out, Coloccini's move was funded by Milner's sale, on balance we've spent little to nothing since ashley arrived), as is the fact he feels the backroom set-up (buy cheap, sell high) is more important than the first team 'coach'. the likes of Jiminez who are there to get us deals like the one that landed us Jonas i'd guess are an exercise in saving money - it's worth the small initial outlay as they'll save you more money than you've spent on one deal, never mind a dozen. for transfers that means it won't happen if the deal is not right for us. not neccessarily bad - but - it means that our criteria for transfers will be based on present and future finance, not just the quality of the player, which will inevitably see us miss out on targets. i also don't necessarily agree with it as, being a midtable side with nothing special to offer, we have to go that extra mile to bring players in. and i'd take a stab that the money saved by using Jiminez will not be allocated toward other transfers. ie - just cos we got guthrie and jonas for £10m less than their worth doesn't mean that £10m is going to go on other transfers, if we feel a club is asking £5m too much for a top drawer player, i think we'd rather miss out than spend half of what we saved elsewhere. just an opinion of course, but one i feel is backed up by reality.

 

what this means for the team -  i think we'll end up in and around the likes of portsmouth or blackburn, and ashley will put more emphasis on doing well in cups rather than in the league. because it doesn't take so much to go on a brave cup run every other year, while breaking into the top four demands real investment.

 

no doubt he also wants the club to make a profit and sees player development and future sales from this as one means of achieveing that profit. i also think he is betting on the market value of premiership clubs increasing in the next few years. i don't think he particularly wants to sell and wouldnt sell on a deal that would give him his money back as he feels 3 years down the line he can get better. i think the only thing that might change this is if fan discontent effects his enjoyment in which case he might take a 'money-back' offer.

 

basically, he is the sam allardyce of club owners -  boring, works to a strict budget, focused on the long-term sometimes at the expense of the present, poor at PR, obsessed with 'systems'.

 

Doesn't that contradict one of the basic arguments of the Ashley critics, i.e. we are operating on a buy to sell policy? Coloccini was signed before Milner's sale.

 

In any case, if you were looking purely from a profit point of view, why spend £10m on an international centre half from a major league? For a third of that you could probably buy a defender from Africa "with potential" and a good re-sale value.

 

i said all summer we'd probably see one 'big' signing and i think coloccini was it. i think the potential thing is a general policy that you can see through our other transfers more so. at that point i thought the board was beginning to show some balls, but almost immediately Faye left, and it started going downhill again.

doesn't it strike you as strange that they'll spend over £5mill now and possibly more later for a relativly unknown spanish forward that the manager didn't want ?

[NE5]

I am not naieve enough to think that Ashley isn't looking to make a profit from Newcastle but if he was only looking to milk the club, why pay a record transfer fee on an international defender? This signing just doesn't fit with the idea being peddled that we are going to buy cheap imports and sell on at a profit.

 

Is it just remotely possible that as someone who's been standing on the terraces, he probably does want to watch a half decent team?

 

half decent team isn't good enough.

 

Keegan broke the record transfer fee for the club for a defender when he bought Darren Peacock, in fact. He also did it again when he bought Warren Barton. Gullit paid big money to buy Marcelino and Goma when the club needed defenders. Then they did it again when they bought Woodgate. Didn't stop them buying strikers and forwards as well. But continue defending the fat bastard for all that your'e worth and ignoring these facts.

 

 

Why did we sell Woodgate then if it wasn't a good deal? Or Les Ferdinand for that matter? I seem to remember a certain "fat bastard" chairman describing both deals as exactly that.

 

Les Ferdinand was sold before your scrapegoat was chairman. And Woodgate was a good deal. If you are trying to say the club didn't back its managers, then your on a different planet.

 

Aside of this, you'll never get it, until one day you are looking at a half empty ground of a club that sells its best players. And even then, you'll never admit that you were wrong.

 

Mike Ashley is running this club into the ground, and its extremely sad that people like you have not seen the blindlingly obvious.

He doesn't care about the club, and doesn't particularly want to be successful on the pitch, so long as he makes a profit from ticket sales, player sales, TV Revenue. etc etc. Wake up and smell the coffee.

 

 

[Parky]

If we don't compete the likes of Collo and Guti will soon leave. (thread closed/)

[johnnypd]

i think he wants the club to run as a self-sufficient entity that won't impact upon his or his other business's finances, which means no money from his pockets, no spending before we receive money, no speculate to accumulate, no short-term debt for investments etc. will also see a trimming of expenses like wages or even matchday suits, not many big fees spent, and rougly a one-in, one-out policy on transfers. hence the whinging about it being an expensive seat to sit in and the call for others to put their money into the club. this way he can turn up on matchday and not have to worry about the club at other times.

 

the net spend on transfers is very worrying at this point, (as it turned out, Coloccini's move was funded by Milner's sale, on balance we've spent little to nothing since ashley arrived), as is the fact he feels the backroom set-up (buy cheap, sell high) is more important than the first team 'coach'. the likes of Jiminez who are there to get us deals like the one that landed us Jonas i'd guess are an exercise in saving money - it's worth the small initial outlay as they'll save you more money than you've spent on one deal, never mind a dozen. for transfers that means it won't happen if the deal is not right for us. not neccessarily bad - but - it means that our criteria for transfers will be based on present and future finance, not just the quality of the player, which will inevitably see us miss out on targets. i also don't necessarily agree with it as, being a midtable side with nothing special to offer, we have to go that extra mile to bring players in. and i'd take a stab that the money saved by using Jiminez will not be allocated toward other transfers. ie - just cos we got guthrie and jonas for £10m less than their worth doesn't mean that £10m is going to go on other transfers, if we feel a club is asking £5m too much for a top drawer player, i think we'd rather miss out than spend half of what we saved elsewhere. just an opinion of course, but one i feel is backed up by reality.

 

what this means for the team -  i think we'll end up in and around the likes of portsmouth or blackburn, and ashley will put more emphasis on doing well in cups rather than in the league. because it doesn't take so much to go on a brave cup run every other year, while breaking into the top four demands real investment.

 

no doubt he also wants the club to make a profit and sees player development and future sales from this as one means of achieveing that profit. i also think he is betting on the market value of premiership clubs increasing in the next few years. i don't think he particularly wants to sell and wouldnt sell on a deal that would give him his money back as he feels 3 years down the line he can get better. i think the only thing that might change this is if fan discontent effects his enjoyment in which case he might take a 'money-back' offer.

 

basically, he is the sam allardyce of club owners -  boring, works to a strict budget, focused on the long-term sometimes at the expense of the present, poor at PR, obsessed with 'systems'.

 

Doesn't that contradict one of the basic arguments of the Ashley critics, i.e. we are operating on a buy to sell policy? Coloccini was signed before Milner's sale.

 

In any case, if you were looking purely from a profit point of view, why spend £10m on an international centre half from a major league? For a third of that you could probably buy a defender from Africa "with potential" and a good re-sale value.

 

i said all summer we'd probably see one 'big' signing and i think coloccini was it. i think the potential thing is a general policy that you can see through our other transfers more so. at that point i thought the board was beginning to show some balls, but almost immediately Faye left, and it started going downhill again.

doesn't it strike you as strange that they'll spend over £5mill now and possibly more later for a relativly unknown spanish forward that the manager didn't want ?

 

no?

[madras]

I am not naieve enough to think that Ashley isn't looking to make a profit from Newcastle but if he was only looking to milk the club, why pay a record transfer fee on an international defender? This signing just doesn't fit with the idea being peddled that we are going to buy cheap imports and sell on at a profit.

 

Is it just remotely possible that as someone who's been standing on the terraces, he probably does want to watch a half decent team?

 

half decent team isn't good enough.

 

Keegan broke the record transfer fee for the club for a defender when he bought Darren Peacock, in fact. He also did it again when he bought Warren Barton. Gullit paid big money to buy Marcelino and Goma when the club needed defenders. Then they did it again when they bought Woodgate. Didn't stop them buying strikers and forwards as well. But continue defending the fat b****** for all that your'e worth and ignoring these facts.

 

 

Why did we sell Woodgate then if it wasn't a good deal? Or Les Ferdinand for that matter? I seem to remember a certain "fat b******" chairman describing both deals as exactly that.

 

Les Ferdinand was sold before your scrapegoat was chairman. And Woodgate was a good deal. If you are trying to say the club didn't back its managers, then your on a different planet.

 

Aside of this, you'll never get it, until one day you are looking at a half empty ground of a club that sells its best players. And even then, you'll never admit that you were wrong.

 

Mike Ashley is running this club into the ground, and its extremely sad that people like you have not seen the blindlingly obvious.

He doesn't care about the club, and doesn't particularly want to be successful on the pitch, so long as he makes a profit from ticket sales, player sales, TV Revenue. etc etc. Wake up and smell the coffee.

 

 

oooohh more cherry picking. fred was still a major part of the decision making process when ferdinand was sold to balance the books was he not ?

 

you only ever come back with "back the club"....you can't do it for ever with poor managers and build up debts and have a wages ratio that was stupid. sooner or laterthe finances had to rained in unless fred was going to push his millions into the club (oops sorry..he just took millions out...my mistake)

[johnnypd]

If we don't compete the likes of Collo and Guti will soon leave. (thread closed/)

 

never mind them, or Owen or Martins, Trappatoni has said Serie A sides should go for Given now that we're in a mess.

[Parky]

i think he wants the club to run as a self-sufficient entity that won't impact upon his or his other business's finances, which means no money from his pockets, no spending before we receive money, no speculate to accumulate, no short-term debt for investments etc. will also see a trimming of expenses like wages or even matchday suits, not many big fees spent, and rougly a one-in, one-out policy on transfers. hence the whinging about it being an expensive seat to sit in and the call for others to put their money into the club. this way he can turn up on matchday and not have to worry about the club at other times.

 

the net spend on transfers is very worrying at this point, (as it turned out, Coloccini's move was funded by Milner's sale, on balance we've spent little to nothing since ashley arrived), as is the fact he feels the backroom set-up (buy cheap, sell high) is more important than the first team 'coach'. the likes of Jiminez who are there to get us deals like the one that landed us Jonas i'd guess are an exercise in saving money - it's worth the small initial outlay as they'll save you more money than you've spent on one deal, never mind a dozen. for transfers that means it won't happen if the deal is not right for us. not neccessarily bad - but - it means that our criteria for transfers will be based on present and future finance, not just the quality of the player, which will inevitably see us miss out on targets. i also don't necessarily agree with it as, being a midtable side with nothing special to offer, we have to go that extra mile to bring players in. and i'd take a stab that the money saved by using Jiminez will not be allocated toward other transfers. ie - just cos we got guthrie and jonas for £10m less than their worth doesn't mean that £10m is going to go on other transfers, if we feel a club is asking £5m too much for a top drawer player, i think we'd rather miss out than spend half of what we saved elsewhere. just an opinion of course, but one i feel is backed up by reality.

 

what this means for the team -  i think we'll end up in and around the likes of portsmouth or blackburn, and ashley will put more emphasis on doing well in cups rather than in the league. because it doesn't take so much to go on a brave cup run every other year, while breaking into the top four demands real investment.

 

no doubt he also wants the club to make a profit and sees player development and future sales from this as one means of achieveing that profit. i also think he is betting on the market value of premiership clubs increasing in the next few years. i don't think he particularly wants to sell and wouldnt sell on a deal that would give him his money back as he feels 3 years down the line he can get better. i think the only thing that might change this is if fan discontent effects his enjoyment in which case he might take a 'money-back' offer.

 

basically, he is the sam allardyce of club owners -  boring, works to a strict budget, focused on the long-term sometimes at the expense of the present, poor at PR, obsessed with 'systems'.

 

Doesn't that contradict one of the basic arguments of the Ashley critics, i.e. we are operating on a buy to sell policy? Coloccini was signed before Milner's sale.

 

In any case, if you were looking purely from a profit point of view, why spend £10m on an international centre half from a major league? For a third of that you could probably buy a defender from Africa "with potential" and a good re-sale value.

 

i said all summer we'd probably see one 'big' signing and i think coloccini was it. i think the potential thing is a general policy that you can see through our other transfers more so. at that point i thought the board was beginning to show some balls, but almost immediately Faye left, and it started going downhill again.

doesn't it strike you as strange that they'll spend over £5mill now and possibly more later for a relativly unknown spanish forward that the manager didn't want ?

 

Someone must reckon Xisco will turn out alright. Time will tell as they say.

[Parky]

If we don't compete the likes of Collo and Guti will soon leave. (thread closed/)

 

never mind them, or Owen or Martins, Trappatoni has said Serie A sides should go for Given now that we're in a mess.

 

Wouldn't blame him tbh. Owen?

[Guest gggg]

What a fucking stupid argument. Yes he's really going to make a profit after sinking £100 mill of debt by seeling some players for £2-3 mill profit, which might just cover their wages. Wake up. It's a good transfer policy for the club unless you want to go the way of the previous regime again.

 

Why do we have to be run like a business or be run like the previous regime. What is wrong with spending some of the £40m Sky give us every season like a normal football club? We'd still be living well within our means.

[Parky]

What a fucking stupid argument. Yes he's really going to make a profit after sinking £100 mill of debt by seeling some players for £2-3 mill profit, which might just cover their wages. Wake up. It's a good transfer policy for the club unless you want to go the way of the previous regime again.

 

Why do we have to be run like a business or be run like the previous regime. What is wrong with spending some of the £40m Sky give us every season like a normal football club? We'd still be living well within our means.

 

Ashley drinks the sky money for a laugh.

[TRon]

What a fucking stupid argument. Yes he's really going to make a profit after sinking £100 mill of debt by seeling some players for £2-3 mill profit, which might just cover their wages. Wake up. It's a good transfer policy for the club unless you want to go the way of the previous regime again.

 

Why do we have to be run like a business or be run like the previous regime. What is wrong with spending some of the £40m Sky give us every season like a normal football club? We'd still be living well within our means.

 

Ashley drinks the sky money for a laugh.

 

As you say...but why Coloccini?

[Parky]

What a fucking stupid argument. Yes he's really going to make a profit after sinking £100 mill of debt by seeling some players for £2-3 mill profit, which might just cover their wages. Wake up. It's a good transfer policy for the club unless you want to go the way of the previous regime again.

 

Why do we have to be run like a business or be run like the previous regime. What is wrong with spending some of the £40m Sky give us every season like a normal football club? We'd still be living well within our means.

 

Ashley drinks the sky money for a laugh.

 

As you say...but why Coloccini?

 

Don't think he's a big drinker.

[TRon]

What a fucking stupid argument. Yes he's really going to make a profit after sinking £100 mill of debt by seeling some players for £2-3 mill profit, which might just cover their wages. Wake up. It's a good transfer policy for the club unless you want to go the way of the previous regime again.

 

Why do we have to be run like a business or be run like the previous regime. What is wrong with spending some of the £40m Sky give us every season like a normal football club? We'd still be living well within our means.

 

Ashley drinks the sky money for a laugh.

 

As you say...but why Coloccini?

 

Don't think he's a big drinker.

 

Do you have an opinion with regard to the original post? I know this is all one big larf to some, but since there is such a militant mood at the moment serious replies would be appreciated.

[Parky]

What a fucking stupid argument. Yes he's really going to make a profit after sinking £100 mill of debt by seeling some players for £2-3 mill profit, which might just cover their wages. Wake up. It's a good transfer policy for the club unless you want to go the way of the previous regime again.

 

Why do we have to be run like a business or be run like the previous regime. What is wrong with spending some of the £40m Sky give us every season like a normal football club? We'd still be living well within our means.

 

Ashley drinks the sky money for a laugh.

 

As you say...but why Coloccini?

 

Don't think he's a big drinker.

 

Do you have an opinion with regard to the original post? I know this is all one big larf to some, but since there is such a militant mood at the moment serious replies would be appreciated.

 

I'm sorry I know nothing of the 'Evil Masterplan'.  :-[

[madras]

What a f***ing stupid argument. Yes he's really going to make a profit after sinking £100 mill of debt by seeling some players for £2-3 mill profit, which might just cover their wages. Wake up. It's a good transfer policy for the club unless you want to go the way of the previous regime again.

 

Why do we have to be run like a business or be run like the previous regime. What is wrong with spending some of the £40m Sky give us every season like a normal football club? We'd still be living well within our means.

 

Ashley drinks the sky money for a laugh.

 

As you say...but why Coloccini?

 

Don't think he's a big drinker.

 

Do you have an opinion with regard to the original post? I know this is all one big larf to some, but since there is such a militant mood at the moment serious replies would be appreciated.

 

I'm sorry I know nothing of the 'Evil Masterplan'.  :-[

now those are words i never,ever thought i'd read.

[Dokko]

What a f***ing stupid argument. Yes he's really going to make a profit after sinking £100 mill of debt by seeling some players for £2-3 mill profit, which might just cover their wages. Wake up. It's a good transfer policy for the club unless you want to go the way of the previous regime again.

 

Why do we have to be run like a business or be run like the previous regime. What is wrong with spending some of the £40m Sky give us every season like a normal football club? We'd still be living well within our means.

 

Ashley drinks the sky money for a laugh.

 

As you say...but why Coloccini?

 

Don't think he's a big drinker.

 

Do you have an opinion with regard to the original post? I know this is all one big larf to some, but since there is such a militant mood at the moment serious replies would be appreciated.

 

I'm sorry I know nothing of the 'Evil Masterplan'.  :-[

now those are words i never,ever thought i'd read.

 

It must be true then! 

[TRon]

What a fucking stupid argument. Yes he's really going to make a profit after sinking £100 mill of debt by seeling some players for £2-3 mill profit, which might just cover their wages. Wake up. It's a good transfer policy for the club unless you want to go the way of the previous regime again.

 

Why do we have to be run like a business or be run like the previous regime. What is wrong with spending some of the £40m Sky give us every season like a normal football club? We'd still be living well within our means.

 

Ashley drinks the sky money for a laugh.

 

As you say...but why Coloccini?

 

Don't think he's a big drinker.

 

Do you have an opinion with regard to the original post? I know this is all one big larf to some, but since there is such a militant mood at the moment serious replies would be appreciated.

 

I'm sorry I know nothing of the 'Evil Masterplan'.  :-[

 

Probably a good idea to quit making pointless comments on 'it' then.

[Optimistic Nut]

I am not naieve enough to think that Ashley isn't looking to make a profit from Newcastle but if he was only looking to milk the club, why pay a record transfer fee on an international defender? This signing just doesn't fit with the idea being peddled that we are going to buy cheap imports and sell on at a profit.

 

Is it just remotely possible that as someone who's been standing on the terraces, he probably does want to watch a half decent team?

 

half decent team isn't good enough.

 

Keegan broke the record transfer fee for the club for a defender when he bought Darren Peacock, in fact. He also did it again when he bought Warren Barton. Gullit paid big money to buy Marcelino and Goma when the club needed defenders. Then they did it again when they bought Woodgate. Didn't stop them buying strikers and forwards as well. But continue defending the fat b****** for all that your'e worth and ignoring these facts.

 

 

Why did we sell Woodgate then if it wasn't a good deal? Or Les Ferdinand for that matter? I seem to remember a certain "fat b******" chairman describing both deals as exactly that.

 

Les Ferdinand was sold before your scrapegoat was chairman. And Woodgate was a good deal. If you are trying to say the club didn't back its managers, then your on a different planet.

 

Aside of this, you'll never get it, until one day you are looking at a half empty ground of a club that sells its best players. And even then, you'll never admit that you were wrong.

 

Mike Ashley is running this club into the ground, and its extremely sad that people like you have not seen the blindlingly obvious.

He doesn't care about the club, and doesn't particularly want to be successful on the pitch, so long as he makes a profit from ticket sales, player sales, TV Revenue. etc etc. Wake up and smell the coffee.

 

 

Woodgate was sold late in the window and not replaced until January...what's to say Keegan wouldn't have got his Milner replacement in a similar fashion?

[BottledDog]

I am not naieve enough to think that Ashley isn't looking to make a profit from Newcastle but if he was only looking to milk the club, why pay a record transfer fee on an international defender? This signing just doesn't fit with the idea being peddled that we are going to buy cheap imports and sell on at a profit.

 

Is it just remotely possible that as someone who's been standing on the terraces, he probably does want to watch a half decent team?

 

half decent team isn't good enough.

 

Keegan broke the record transfer fee for the club for a defender when he bought Darren Peacock, in fact. He also did it again when he bought Warren Barton. Gullit paid big money to buy Marcelino and Goma when the club needed defenders. Then they did it again when they bought Woodgate. Didn't stop them buying strikers and forwards as well. But continue defending the fat b****** for all that your'e worth and ignoring these facts.

 

 

Why did we sell Woodgate then if it wasn't a good deal? Or Les Ferdinand for that matter? I seem to remember a certain "fat b******" chairman describing both deals as exactly that.

 

Les Ferdinand was sold before your scrapegoat was chairman. And Woodgate was a good deal. If you are trying to say the club didn't back its managers, then your on a different planet.

 

Aside of this, you'll never get it, until one day you are looking at a half empty ground of a club that sells its best players. And even then, you'll never admit that you were wrong.

 

Mike Ashley is running this club into the ground, and its extremely sad that people like you have not seen the blindlingly obvious.

He doesn't care about the club, and doesn't particularly want to be successful on the pitch, so long as he makes a profit from ticket sales, player sales, TV Revenue. etc etc. Wake up and smell the coffee.

 

 

Woodgate was sold late in the window and not replaced until January...what's to say Keegan wouldn't have got his Milner replacement in a similar fashion?

 

If I remember rightly, keegan said exactly that. If they didn't manage to use the money in this window, they will do thier best in the next. In fact he made a point of highlighting the similarities of the Andy Cole deal as a reason to trust him over the Milner sale.

[mrmojorisin75]

anyone read the stuff about liverpool fans protesting before the man u game?

 

is the whole thing not basically fans throwing their toys out the pram 'cause the new owners they wanted aren't throwing money about left, right and centre?  us included obviously...

 

that's liverpool who have spent 20m+ two summers in a row on new strikers, i feel i must add

 

the point being, as NE5 said ages ago, be careful what you wish for...we wished rid of shepherd and got ashley who "cleared the debt" and "instituted a plan" - 2 things people really wanted to see happen

 

the plan hasn't gone 100% their way & now they want rid of ashley after a year, even NE5 (from what i can see) despite it being him who originated the be careful what you wish for idea

 

so for me i hope the revolt works, ashley leaves, and we get a foreign owner (remember when everyone thought it was great we got an english owner?  i do) who finances the purchase of the club completely on loans and we're spending millions just paying the interest back...then again that'll never happen will it?  the grass is always greener

[mrmojorisin75]

I am not naieve enough to think that Ashley isn't looking to make a profit from Newcastle but if he was only looking to milk the club, why pay a record transfer fee on an international defender? This signing just doesn't fit with the idea being peddled that we are going to buy cheap imports and sell on at a profit.

 

Is it just remotely possible that as someone who's been standing on the terraces, he probably does want to watch a half decent team?

 

half decent team isn't good enough.

 

Keegan broke the record transfer fee for the club for a defender when he bought Darren Peacock, in fact. He also did it again when he bought Warren Barton. Gullit paid big money to buy Marcelino and Goma when the club needed defenders. Then they did it again when they bought Woodgate. Didn't stop them buying strikers and forwards as well. But continue defending the fat b****** for all that your'e worth and ignoring these facts.

 

 

Why did we sell Woodgate then if it wasn't a good deal? Or Les Ferdinand for that matter? I seem to remember a certain "fat b******" chairman describing both deals as exactly that.

 

Les Ferdinand was sold before your scrapegoat was chairman. And Woodgate was a good deal. If you are trying to say the club didn't back its managers, then your on a different planet.

 

Aside of this, you'll never get it, until one day you are looking at a half empty ground of a club that sells its best players. And even then, you'll never admit that you were wrong.

 

Mike Ashley is running this club into the ground, and its extremely sad that people like you have not seen the blindlingly obvious.

He doesn't care about the club, and doesn't particularly want to be successful on the pitch, so long as he makes a profit from ticket sales, player sales, TV Revenue. etc etc. Wake up and smell the coffee.

 

 

Woodgate was sold late in the window and not replaced until January...what's to say Keegan wouldn't have got his Milner replacement in a similar fashion?

 

If I remember rightly, keegan said exactly that. If they didn't manage to use the money in this window, they will do thier best in the next. In fact he made a point of highlighting the similarities of the Andy Cole deal as a reason to trust him over the Milner sale.

 

nah, fuckin conspiracy mate, maximise profits an that y'naa...

[Spider Jerusalem]

What we needed was somewhere in between Fat Fred and Fat Ash - an owner who didn't throw money around that they couldn't afford and someone who holds a fire-sale every time that the transfer window comes around.

 

What has happened to the Sky money BTW.  Not tht we'll find out as the accounts are now a closed book to the outside world.

[themanupstairs]

i think he wants the club to run as a self-sufficient entity that won't impact upon his or his other business's finances, which means no money from his pockets, no spending before we receive money, no speculate to accumulate, no short-term debt for investments etc. will also see a trimming of expenses like wages or even matchday suits, not many big fees spent, and rougly a one-in, one-out policy on transfers. hence the whinging about it being an expensive seat to sit in and the call for others to put their money into the club. this way he can turn up on matchday and not have to worry about the club at other times.

 

the net spend on transfers is very worrying at this point, (as it turned out, Coloccini's move was funded by Milner's sale, on balance we've spent little to nothing since ashley arrived), as is the fact he feels the backroom set-up (buy cheap, sell high) is more important than the first team 'coach'. the likes of Jiminez who are there to get us deals like the one that landed us Jonas i'd guess are an exercise in saving money - it's worth the small initial outlay as they'll save you more money than you've spent on one deal, never mind a dozen. for transfers that means it won't happen if the deal is not right for us. not neccessarily bad - but - it means that our criteria for transfers will be based on present and future finance, not just the quality of the player, which will inevitably see us miss out on targets. i also don't necessarily agree with it as, being a midtable side with nothing special to offer, we have to go that extra mile to bring players in. and i'd take a stab that the money saved by using Jiminez will not be allocated toward other transfers. ie - just cos we got guthrie and jonas for £10m less than their worth doesn't mean that £10m is going to go on other transfers, if we feel a club is asking £5m too much for a top drawer player, i think we'd rather miss out than spend half of what we saved elsewhere. just an opinion of course, but one i feel is backed up by reality.

 

what this means for the team -  i think we'll end up in and around the likes of portsmouth or blackburn, and ashley will put more emphasis on doing well in cups rather than in the league. because it doesn't take so much to go on a brave cup run every other year, while breaking into the top four demands real investment.

 

no doubt he also wants the club to make a profit and sees player development and future sales from this as one means of achieveing that profit. i also think he is betting on the market value of premiership clubs increasing in the next few years. i don't think he particularly wants to sell and wouldnt sell on a deal that would give him his money back as he feels 3 years down the line he can get better. i think the only thing that might change this is if fan discontent effects his enjoyment in which case he might take a 'money-back' offer.

 

basically, he is the sam allardyce of club owners -  boring, works to a strict budget, focused on the long-term sometimes at the expense of the present, poor at PR, obsessed with 'systems'.

 

 

nailed

 

and the sad thing is, there are STILL people who can't see it.

 

How sad.

 

 

 

it's so sad. i still can't see it 

[mrmojorisin75]

What we needed was somewhere in between Fat Fred and Fat Ash - an owner who didn't throw money around that they couldn't afford and someone who holds a fire-sale every time that the transfer window comes around.

 

What has happened to the Sky money BTW.  Not tht we'll find out as the accounts are now a closed book to the outside world.

basically correct, yeah...ashley isn't spending enough of the clubs money, but i'm yet to be convinced he won't spend EVER unlike some

 

people using the milner sale to justify the maximise profits stuff is truly incredible - i can't think of a better financial deal for a player we've ever had given his level of ability and end product on the pitch, they'd have been mental to turn it down...keegan obviously agreed with that as well given he sanctioned the sale

 

lets see who they bring in and lets see what happens in january - you have to assume they'll ensure the new guys sings from the same sheet player-wise (pardon the pun) therefore if they don't spend in january it's really time to wonder, although it'll likely be explained by lack of time or some shit

 

for me the allardyce window and last can be "conveniently" explained away by a number of factors - if they get a new guy now i can see no excuses anymore...