Bad Mongo Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 It's not a compromise if it doesn't involve both. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karjala Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 Ashley. KK was doing a good job, and a victory today against Hull wont have been a bad start to the season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darth Toon Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 KK wants rid of Wise, or at the very least his influence reining in Ashely won't shift him. No amount of compromising will get around that central point IMO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sicko2ndbest Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 Ashley and Wise have said numerous times KK has final say on who comes in. They Lied This is the massive obstacle that needs to be hurdled Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 Ashley and Wise have said numerous times KK has final say on who comes in. They Lied This is the massive obstacle that needs to be hurdled so did keegan when he apparently knew he didn't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 so did keegan when he apparently knew he didn't. Unless like everybody else, he thought that he did have final say. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 I'd love Keegan back but I'm not sure I want him back with all control of transfers in and out. Not unless Ashley is prepared to bankroll his signings without putting us into big time debt. IMO, even if Keegan spends £50m we still won't win anything because we'll probably have a bunch of over-paid big time charlies who won't have the hunger to break into the top 4. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 I'd love Keegan back but I'm not sure I want him back with all control of transfers in and out. Not unless Ashley is prepared to bankroll his signings without putting us into big time debt. IMO, even if Keegan spends £50m we still won't win anything because we'll probably have a bunch of over-paid big time charlies who won't have the hunger to break into the top 4. I know what you mean, he did that last time he was here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 I'd love Keegan back but I'm not sure I want him back with all control of transfers in and out. Not unless Ashley is prepared to bankroll his signings without putting us into big time debt. IMO, even if Keegan spends £50m we still won't win anything because we'll probably have a bunch of over-paid big time charlies who won't have the hunger to break into the top 4. I know what you mean, he did that last time he was here. We really need an irony smiley don't we Mick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 I'd love Keegan back but I'm not sure I want him back with all control of transfers in and out. Not unless Ashley is prepared to bankroll his signings without putting us into big time debt. IMO, even if Keegan spends £50m we still won't win anything because we'll probably have a bunch of over-paid big time charlies who won't have the hunger to break into the top 4. I know what you mean, he did that last time he was here. Last time Spurs, City, Villa and Chelsea weren't in a position to compete with his spending. To recreate the past we'll need to shoot their billionaire owners and hope their wives get all the cash. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 I'd love Keegan back but I'm not sure I want him back with all control of transfers in and out. Not unless Ashley is prepared to bankroll his signings without putting us into big time debt. IMO, even if Keegan spends £50m we still won't win anything because we'll probably have a bunch of over-paid big time charlies who won't have the hunger to break into the top 4. I know what you mean, he did that last time he was here. Last time Spurs, City, Villa and Chelsea weren't in a position to compete with his spending. To recreate the past we'll need to shoot their billionaire owners and hope their wives get all the cash. Apologies if I'm missing the point, but does that mean we shouldn't get anyone at all in? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 Fuking sick it didn't work out. Would like to see Ashley sell up and allow a real billionaire who's not afraid to push us forward take charge and reinstate KK. But there's about 2% chance of that. So i'd like to see Ashley back down, give KK more control, and KK to stop being a bottling bitch, and there's about a .000005% chance of that happening. Overall the lot of them have fuked the club over, its probably time for a clearout of the lot, including the waste of space players like Duff, Smith, Viduka, Barton & contract ending Owen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 I'd love Keegan back but I'm not sure I want him back with all control of transfers in and out. Not unless Ashley is prepared to bankroll his signings without putting us into big time debt. IMO, even if Keegan spends £50m we still won't win anything because we'll probably have a bunch of over-paid big time charlies who won't have the hunger to break into the top 4. I know what you mean, he did that last time he was here. Last time Spurs, City, Villa and Chelsea weren't in a position to compete with his spending. To recreate the past we'll need to shoot their billionaire owners and hope their wives get all the cash. Apologies if I'm missing the point, but does that mean we shouldn't get anyone at all in? Why would it mean that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stozo Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 Find a new manager and move on. If keegan wants to come back then he can't say he hasn't had the oppurtunity. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 I'd love Keegan back but I'm not sure I want him back with all control of transfers in and out. Not unless Ashley is prepared to bankroll his signings without putting us into big time debt. IMO, even if Keegan spends £50m we still won't win anything because we'll probably have a bunch of over-paid big time charlies who won't have the hunger to break into the top 4. I know what you mean, he did that last time he was here. Last time Spurs, City, Villa and Chelsea weren't in a position to compete with his spending. To recreate the past we'll need to shoot their billionaire owners and hope their wives get all the cash. Apologies if I'm missing the point, but does that mean we shouldn't get anyone at all in? Why would it mean that? Like I say I might have missed what you mean. It read that you don't want Keegan (in particular) spending loads of money because he won't attract the right players. When Mick said he managed it last time, I read it that you thought its not worth it because all of those clubs are ahead of us anyway? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 I'd love Keegan back but I'm not sure I want him back with all control of transfers in and out. Not unless Ashley is prepared to bankroll his signings without putting us into big time debt. IMO, even if Keegan spends £50m we still won't win anything because we'll probably have a bunch of over-paid big time charlies who won't have the hunger to break into the top 4. I know what you mean, he did that last time he was here. Last time Spurs, City, Villa and Chelsea weren't in a position to compete with his spending. To recreate the past we'll need to shoot their billionaire owners and hope their wives get all the cash. Apologies if I'm missing the point, but does that mean we shouldn't get anyone at all in? Why would it mean that? Like I say I might have missed what you mean. It read that you don't want Keegan (in particular) spending loads of money because he won't attract the right players. When Mick said he managed it last time, I read it that you thought its not worth it because all of those clubs are ahead of us anyway? What I meant was there is tougher competition this time round. When Keegan broke into the top 4 last time, he was one of the biggest spenders, backed by SJH. I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure Chelsea, Spurs, Man City and Everton didn't have as much cash to compete for the top 4 spot. This time even if Keegan gets £50m to spend there's no guarantee we will finish in Europe never mind top 4. So it stands to reason that any funds need to be spent wisely, unless there's a bottomless pit of money. I'm not convinced that's Keegan's strength. But if there is a bottomless pit of money, I'd love it to be given to Keegan ahead of anyone else. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 What I meant was there is tougher competition this time round. When Keegan broke into the top 4 last time, he was one of the biggest spenders, backed by SJH. I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure Chelsea, Spurs, Man City and Everton didn't have as much cash to compete for the top 4 spot. This time even if Keegan gets £50m to spend there's no guarantee we will finish in Europe never mind top 4. So it stands to reason that any funds need to be spent wisely, unless there's a bottomless pit of money. I'm not convinced that's Keegan's strength. But if there is a bottomless pit of money, I'd love it to be given to Keegan ahead of anyone else. I thought that you were implying that Keegan would bring in "a bunch of over-paid big time charlies who won't have the hunger to break into the top 4." He doesn't have a history of that while here, I would say that his transfer record while here is second to none as his only failures were the players who came in for next to nothing, I think most of them left for as much as they cost us. If I’ve picked it up wrong then my mistake. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Logic Posted September 13, 2008 Share Posted September 13, 2008 Poll missing a potentially popular answer.. Question: Who should compromise? KK or Ashley? Keegan Ashley Both Find a new manager and move on Ashley should give up, sell the club and move on Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.f2d92e50efb89579ccca9ca610dd29c6.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now