Fans to blame? F*ck off!

[fredbob]

 

And my major point about your major point was that Ashley's was NOT a "good, much needed long-term plan" - because his plan was to let Dennis Wise overrule our manager on transfers.

 

 

Which shows you choose to beleive the first of my 2 scenarios that i gave - whereas im probably a disciple of the second.

 

You have just as much evidence as i do regarding what actually went on at the club - yet you have blindly backed one man deifintitely over the other with absolutely no knowledge of the truth. I have probably chosen to back the other man becasue i believed in what he had planned for the club and i saw that as being more important than the whims of a manager who's managerial record doesnt warrant such blind faith.

 

You have chosen to back a manager purely and simply becasue of something he achieved 15 years ago for the club, and you believe that that is more imporant for the club in the long run.

 

The difference between our beliefs is that one has already dramatically changed the future of the club for no good reason and the other hasnt.

 

 

 

 

 

I am not backing KK purely and simply because of events of 15 years ago, I'm backing him because all the evidence (including some fed to national Sunday papers by Ashley's camp a week or two into this saga) is that Keegan didn't get players he was promised in the final days of the window, and was landed with Gonzalez and Xisco instead.

 

Your final paragraph is just gibberish.

 

 

 

 

 

Sunday papers? Each paper has its own view and version of the events.

 

And if you say he didnt get the players he was promised - do you know the circumstances if which the players didnt join? Or are you assuming that Wise didnt fancy them and therefore didnt even bother going for them?

 

Im not, my basis of belief is not becasue x undrmined y, or y stabbed z in the back, its that i value the long term plan which Ashley seemed to be pitching over any individual at the club. Supposing, things did go smoother - we could have had Deschamps, we could have had Terim we could even have had Zico by now, would that of been such a resounding disaster?

 

To me, no.

 

If Ashley allowed his director of football to overrule Deschamps, Terim or Zico on transfers, it would be a disaster, yes.

 

 

So no decent retort then? Nice one.

[UV]

fredbob there's just on thing I don't quite understand. Now that "the squad has improved dramatically" and we have relieved ourselves of a "mediocre manager" who was obviously holding us back, why do we keep losing abjectly to poor teams? Is this still part of the "long term plan for the club with slow steady progress"? Am I just missing some subtle part of the plan here?

 

Im not sure ive ever had a post from you which actually gets the crux of any of my points. "obvioudly holding us back"?? Where have i said that then? You've made that up, and that is the crux of your entire post. So basically a non post - well done.

 

so i'd say that for the best interests of the club Keegan should definitely of left

 

Ahhh, out of context quoting - how refreshing. Nice change of pace to your usualy miss the point posts i suppose.

 

I'm not sure if you think you're being clever by deliberately trying to avoid the question, but if you ever managed to structure a sentence so it made sense you might have better luck putting across some of your so called points.

 

Put some context around your words "for the best interests of the club Keegan should definitely of left" if you like, but perhaps you could also explain how having a "mediocre manager" as you call Keegan would not hold us back. I would expect results to immediately improve as the players were relieved of the mediocrity.

 

 

Pointing out someones poor english? Very cute.

 

Well, if you read the bit around that quote you've highlighted you'd of seen that i was giving 2 scenarios which both sets of fans believe as the true account of what happened at the club. (i.e Keegan was undermined from the start or Keegan dragged his heals over the signings and didnt pick suitable targets himself). And you'd of seen that the outcome in both scenarios was that Keegan would/should of left, either he resigned becasue of his principles or he was forced due to not fitting in with the policy.

 

As his position seemed untenable for the system - it was in nufc best interest that keegan should of left. No way here am i implying that he was a s*** manager who was holding us back, but that he just didnt fit in.

 

The bit about him being a mediocre manager is in reference to his record and blind backing in light of his record.

 

So in fact the context changes absolutely nothing, and the quote "for the best interests of the club Keegan should definitely of left" fully represents your opinion. Thanks for clearing that up. I'll ever so slightly rephrase the questions then in the hope that you might answer them.

 

How does having a "mediocre manager" whose "position seemed untenable for the system" in your opinion not hold us back?

 

Now that "the squad has improved dramatically" and we have relieved ourselves of a "mediocre manager" who was obviously holding us back "should definitely of left", why do we keep losing abjectly to poor teams? Is this still part of the "long term plan for the club with slow steady progress"?

[ChezGiven]

Terry wont come as he is scared of us.

 

[fredbob]

fredbob there's just on thing I don't quite understand. Now that "the squad has improved dramatically" and we have relieved ourselves of a "mediocre manager" who was obviously holding us back, why do we keep losing abjectly to poor teams? Is this still part of the "long term plan for the club with slow steady progress"? Am I just missing some subtle part of the plan here?

 

Im not sure ive ever had a post from you which actually gets the crux of any of my points. "obvioudly holding us back"?? Where have i said that then? You've made that up, and that is the crux of your entire post. So basically a non post - well done.

 

so i'd say that for the best interests of the club Keegan should definitely of left

 

Ahhh, out of context quoting - how refreshing. Nice change of pace to your usualy miss the point posts i suppose.

 

I'm not sure if you think you're being clever by deliberately trying to avoid the question, but if you ever managed to structure a sentence so it made sense you might have better luck putting across some of your so called points.

 

Put some context around your words "for the best interests of the club Keegan should definitely of left" if you like, but perhaps you could also explain how having a "mediocre manager" as you call Keegan would not hold us back. I would expect results to immediately improve as the players were relieved of the mediocrity.

 

 

Pointing out someones poor english? Very cute.

 

Well, if you read the bit around that quote you've highlighted you'd of seen that i was giving 2 scenarios which both sets of fans believe as the true account of what happened at the club. (i.e Keegan was undermined from the start or Keegan dragged his heals over the signings and didnt pick suitable targets himself). And you'd of seen that the outcome in both scenarios was that Keegan would/should of left, either he resigned becasue of his principles or he was forced due to not fitting in with the policy.

 

As his position seemed untenable for the system - it was in nufc best interest that keegan should of left. No way here am i implying that he was a s*** manager who was holding us back, but that he just didnt fit in.

 

The bit about him being a mediocre manager is in reference to his record and blind backing in light of his record.

 

So in fact the context changes absolutely nothing, and the quote "for the best interests of the club Keegan should definitely of left" fully represents your opinion. Thanks for clearing that up. I'll ever so slightly rephrase the questions then in the hope that you might answer them.

 

How does having a "mediocre manager" whose "position seemed untenable for the system" in your opinion not hold us back?

 

Now that "the squad has improved dramatically" and we have relieved ourselves of a "mediocre manager" who was obviously holding us back "should definitely of left", why do we keep losing abjectly to poor teams? Is this still part of the "long term plan for the club with slow steady progress"?

 

Not a bad post UV. Well done.

 

(From your original post)

 

"mediocre manager" who was obviously holding us back, why do we keep losing abjectly to poor teams?

 

Keegan should of left NOT becasue i thought he was a s*** manager - but becasue he wasnt going to fit in with the system. Why is that so hard to understand? Thats what i meant but your original post implies i thought he should of left becasue he was apoor manager who was doing a crap job for the team. So yes the context is important. If he was happy with the way things were then he could of stayed as he would be getting in line with the system and he wouldnt of been holding us back, but he wasnt therefore had to go.

 

Are you a journo?

 

Keegans record as manager is not much better than the likes of Allardyce, Curbishley, Veneables or arguably McLaren. (Try not to get stuck on this point) How would you describe these managers? Excellent? Good? Average? Poor? Mediocre?,what is it on Keegans permanent record which seperates himself from these? His best achievemnt as manager was 10 years ago - alot of these managers best achievements were more recent in arguably more harder times.

 

I just dont understand how anyone would describe a manager who's best achievemnt was 10 years ago to be anything other than average at best? How do you rate what Jim Smith did at Derby or what Peter Ried did at Sunderland? Are they anything other than average managers?

 

You seem to be getting hung up on the description of keegan as mediocre - i used mediocre to apply perspective to some of the over reactions to his leaving, i beleive my belief is 'vindicated'.

 

We're losing to poor teams becasue the the squads confidence is low and they are unhappy. the opposite occured when Roeder took over from Souness.

 

[magorific]

 

And my major point about your major point was that Ashley's was NOT a "good, much needed long-term plan" - because his plan was to let Dennis Wise overrule our manager on transfers.

 

 

Which shows you choose to beleive the first of my 2 scenarios that i gave - whereas im probably a disciple of the second.

 

You have just as much evidence as i do regarding what actually went on at the club - yet you have blindly backed one man deifintitely over the other with absolutely no knowledge of the truth. I have probably chosen to back the other man becasue i believed in what he had planned for the club and i saw that as being more important than the whims of a manager who's managerial record doesnt warrant such blind faith.

 

You have chosen to back a manager purely and simply becasue of something he achieved 15 years ago for the club, and you believe that that is more imporant for the club in the long run.

 

The difference between our beliefs is that one has already dramatically changed the future of the club for no good reason and the other hasnt.

 

 

 

 

 

I am not backing KK purely and simply because of events of 15 years ago, I'm backing him because all the evidence (including some fed to national Sunday papers by Ashley's camp a week or two into this saga) is that Keegan didn't get players he was promised in the final days of the window, and was landed with Gonzalez and Xisco instead.

 

Your final paragraph is just gibberish.

 

 

 

 

 

Sunday papers? Each paper has its own view and version of the events.

 

And if you say he didnt get the players he was promised - do you know the circumstances if which the players didnt join? Or are you assuming that Wise didnt fancy them and therefore didnt even bother going for them?

 

Im not, my basis of belief is not becasue x undrmined y, or y stabbed z in the back, its that i value the long term plan which Ashley seemed to be pitching over any individual at the club. Supposing, things did go smoother - we could have had Deschamps, we could have had Terim we could even have had Zico by now, would that of been such a resounding disaster?

 

To me, no.

 

If Ashley allowed his director of football to overrule Deschamps, Terim or Zico on transfers, it would be a disaster, yes.

 

 

So no decent retort then? Nice one.

 

WTF? I am challenging the validity of Ashley's long-term plan. That's my retort. Where's yours?

[Guest Lee-T]

I would say our fans are the third shittiest in the Premier League.

 

And your team is ?

Manchester United.

[UV]

Keegan should of left NOT becasue i thought he was a s*** manager - but becasue he wasnt going to fit in with the system. Why is that so hard to understand? Thats what i meant but your original post implies i thought he should of left becasue he was apoor manager who was doing a crap job for the team. So yes the context is important. If he was happy with the way things were then he could of stayed as he would be getting in line with the system and he wouldnt of been holding us back, but he wasnt therefore had to go.

 

Are you a journo?

 

Keegans record as manager is not much better than the likes of Allardyce, Curbishley, Veneables or arguably McLaren. (Try not to get stuck on this point) How would you describe these managers? Excellent? Good? Average? Poor? Mediocre?,what is it on Keegans permanent record which seperates himself from these? His best achievemnt as manager was 10 years ago - alot of these managers best achievements were more recent in arguably more harder times.

 

I just dont understand how anyone would describe a manager who's best achievemnt was 10 years ago to be anything other than average at best? How do you rate what Jim Smith did at Derby or what Peter Ried did at Sunderland? Are they anything other than average managers?

 

You seem to be getting hung up on the description of keegan as mediocre - i used mediocre to apply perspective to some of the over reactions to his leaving, i beleive my belief is 'vindicated'.

 

We're losing to poor teams becasue the the squads confidence is low and they are unhappy. the opposite occured when Roeder took over from Souness.

 

 

I'm not sure why you keep banging on about why you think Keegan should have left, as in the context of the original question it is completely irrelevant. Frankly you should be asking yourself why he was ever appointed in the first place as he was quite clearly not someone who would be able to work happily under the system which has been set up since. Even Ashley must have been very aware of this as he put clauses in Keegan's contract to try and stop him talking about non-team matters and stop him resigning once he realised just how little say he would actually have in the buying and selling of players. I've never heard of such clauses in a manager's contract before, and it leads me to the conclusion that Keegan's level of influence in these key decisions was planned to deviate from what was verbally agreed at the start. Ashley just either underestimated Keegan's principals or overestimated how important the money was to him. He probably thought he'd get a season or two out of Keegan putting a supporter friendly face to his sham of a plan before he got rid by blaming him for the poor performance of Wise's purchases.

 

 

Anyway, back to the point. I only ever raised your quote as you used a phrase in the question as a feeble excuse to try and dodge answering it. Unless you think a "mediocre manager" whose "position seemed untenable for the system" would not obviously hold the club back, then I really don't see what your problem with the phrasing of the original question is.

 

You said the squad has improved dramatically.

You said Keegan is a mediocre manager.

Why then is the quality of the football played by the team so s*** if the squad has improved dramatically?

Why then is the squad's confidence low if we all we have done is lose a mediocre manager?

 

 

I'm glad you brought up Souness & Roeder actually. Can you answer these questions:

Is the squad better now in your opinion than when Roeder took over from Souness? Yes or no.

Is statistically (using the same principals as you have to describe Keegan as mediocre) Souness a better manager than Keegan? Yes or no.

Is statistically (using the same principals as you have to describe Keegan as mediocre) Roeder a worse manager than Keegan? Yes or no.

 

If your answers to the above are as I expect they should be in your opinion yes to all 3, can you explain to me how at that time when we replaced a better manager with a worse one the performances turned around, we managed to finish 7th and got to the FA cup quarter finals, and yet now we are looking like relegation fodder and have been dumped out of the FA cup at the first hurdle, at home by the only team who have started worse than us in the division? Something's wrong with your opinion of the squad strength and/or your logic of how to rate a manager. I think it's both.

[fredbob]

 

And my major point about your major point was that Ashley's was NOT a "good, much needed long-term plan" - because his plan was to let Dennis Wise overrule our manager on transfers.

 

 

Which shows you choose to beleive the first of my 2 scenarios that i gave - whereas im probably a disciple of the second.

 

You have just as much evidence as i do regarding what actually went on at the club - yet you have blindly backed one man deifintitely over the other with absolutely no knowledge of the truth. I have probably chosen to back the other man becasue i believed in what he had planned for the club and i saw that as being more important than the whims of a manager who's managerial record doesnt warrant such blind faith.

 

You have chosen to back a manager purely and simply becasue of something he achieved 15 years ago for the club, and you believe that that is more imporant for the club in the long run.

 

The difference between our beliefs is that one has already dramatically changed the future of the club for no good reason and the other hasnt.

 

 

 

 

 

I am not backing KK purely and simply because of events of 15 years ago, I'm backing him because all the evidence (including some fed to national Sunday papers by Ashley's camp a week or two into this saga) is that Keegan didn't get players he was promised in the final days of the window, and was landed with Gonzalez and Xisco instead.

 

Your final paragraph is just gibberish.

 

 

 

 

 

Sunday papers? Each paper has its own view and version of the events.

 

And if you say he didnt get the players he was promised - do you know the circumstances if which the players didnt join? Or are you assuming that Wise didnt fancy them and therefore didnt even bother going for them?

 

Im not, my basis of belief is not becasue x undrmined y, or y stabbed z in the back, its that i value the long term plan which Ashley seemed to be pitching over any individual at the club. Supposing, things did go smoother - we could have had Deschamps, we could have had Terim we could even have had Zico by now, would that of been such a resounding disaster?

 

To me, no.

 

If Ashley allowed his director of football to overrule Deschamps, Terim or Zico on transfers, it would be a disaster, yes.

 

 

So no decent retort then? Nice one.

 

WTF? I am challenging the validity of Ashley's long-term plan. That's my retort. Where's yours?

 

How is that a retort? All you've done is made an assumption and stated it as though its a feature of the structure and is part of the plan, which is quite fankly rubbish.

 

Question for you - can you tell me the exact circumstances of Keegans departure steering clear of hear'say and what you read in the papers? Where did Wise undermine him? Why? How has he undermined him? etc... Do you have first hand view of the events??

 

 

[fredbob]

Keegan should of left NOT becasue i thought he was a s*** manager - but becasue he wasnt going to fit in with the system. Why is that so hard to understand? Thats what i meant but your original post implies i thought he should of left becasue he was apoor manager who was doing a crap job for the team. So yes the context is important. If he was happy with the way things were then he could of stayed as he would be getting in line with the system and he wouldnt of been holding us back, but he wasnt therefore had to go.

 

Are you a journo?

 

Keegans record as manager is not much better than the likes of Allardyce, Curbishley, Veneables or arguably McLaren. (Try not to get stuck on this point) How would you describe these managers? Excellent? Good? Average? Poor? Mediocre?,what is it on Keegans permanent record which seperates himself from these? His best achievemnt as manager was 10 years ago - alot of these managers best achievements were more recent in arguably more harder times.

 

I just dont understand how anyone would describe a manager who's best achievemnt was 10 years ago to be anything other than average at best? How do you rate what Jim Smith did at Derby or what Peter Ried did at Sunderland? Are they anything other than average managers?

 

You seem to be getting hung up on the description of keegan as mediocre - i used mediocre to apply perspective to some of the over reactions to his leaving, i beleive my belief is 'vindicated'.

 

We're losing to poor teams becasue the the squads confidence is low and they are unhappy. the opposite occured when Roeder took over from Souness.

 

 

I'm not sure why you keep banging on about why you think Keegan should have left, as in the context of the original question it is completely irrelevant. Frankly you should be asking yourself why he was ever appointed in the first place as he was quite clearly not someone who would be able to work happily under the system which has been set up since. Even Ashley must have been very aware of this as he put clauses in Keegan's contract to try and stop him talking about non-team matters and stop him resigning once he realised just how little say he would actually have in the buying and selling of players. I've never heard of such clauses in a manager's contract before, and it leads me to the conclusion that Keegan's level of influence in these key decisions was planned to deviate from what was verbally agreed at the start. Ashley just either underestimated Keegan's principals or overestimated how important the money was to him. He probably thought he'd get a season or two out of Keegan putting a supporter friendly face to his sham of a plan before he got rid by blaming him for the poor performance of Wise's purchases.

 

bang on you're absolutely right- Ashley and Co made a stupendous mistake in expecting him to work in those circumstances - they must shoulder the blame for the lack of foresight, it could be argued that Keegan could be blamed as well at this point for accpeting the job - but i wont. the rest of what you say seems like conjecture - im not sure anyone knows the full story, so i couldnt possibly specualte.

 

 

Anyway, back to the point. I only ever raised your quote as you used a phrase in the question as a feeble excuse to try and dodge answering it. Unless you think a "mediocre manager" whose "position seemed untenable for the system" would not obviously hold the club back, then I really don't see what your problem with the phrasing of the original question is.

 

the point is that in my view (obviously based on as much evidence as your view is) he was holding the club back by not getting into line with the policy of player recruitment , not becasue i thought he was a mediocre manager adn was doing a poor job as you were implying by the nature of your question. I pointed to his mediocre record as means of putting perspective on why protesting to the extent we did was pretty silly and backed up the media "myth" that we're delusion - we are.

 

You said the squad has improved dramatically.

You said Keegan is a mediocre manager.

Why then is the quality of the football played by the team so s*** if the squad has improved dramatically?

Why then is the squad's confidence low if we all we have done is lose a mediocre manager?

 

wow, you are really getting caught up with this mediocre definition - ill put it to you (like i have done before) how would you describe his managerial record and how does it differ from anything Allardyce has actually achieved or McLaren has achieved or Curbishley, even Jim Smith and Derby. How would you describe these managers? They're all on a pretty similar level of achievments if you ask me. My opinion anyway.

 

 

I'm glad you brought up Souness & Roeder actually. Can you answer these questions:

Is the squad better now in your opinion than when Roeder took over from Souness? Yes or no. Yes

Is statistically (using the same principals as you have to describe Keegan as mediocre) Souness a better manager than Keegan? Yes or no. Good question - statistically speaking yes he is. Just in the same way Dalglish is statistically a better manager than Keegan. Works both ways you see. I feel you're misunderstanding my point htough - my point is though that he doesnt have the record which demands so much blind faith, he's no longer instrumental to our club and is replacebale, unlike a Fergie or a Wenger...

Is statistically (using the same principals as you have to describe Keegan as mediocre) Roeder a worse manager than Keegan? Yes or no. Yes he is a worse manager than keegan.

 

 

If your answers to the above are as I expect they should be in your opinion yes to all 3, can you explain to me how at that time when we replaced a better manager with a worse one the performances turned around, we managed to finish 7th and got to the FA cup quarter finals, and yet now we are looking like relegation fodder and have been dumped out of the FA cup at the first hurdle, at home by the only team who have started worse than us in the division? Something's wrong with your opinion of the squad strength and/or your logic of how to rate a manager. I think it's both.

 

 

Already answered this - in fact i used this as reasoning as to why we are doing badly now.

 

We're losing to poor teams becasue the the squads confidence is low and they are unhappy. the opposite occured when Roeder took over from Souness.

 

Note, i havent said once i beleve Keegan is a bad manager - get it out your head - ive just pointed that i feel sacrificing the long term plan of ashley and all good that he;s done for the club for the whims of a manager whose managerial record doesnt warrant that sort of blind loyalty - with little or no facts to back up any protests at all is ridiculous. If you want more answers look through this post - i think ive just about come full circle.

[Robster]

The way I read it (of course with none of this being fact) is that :

 

Keegan wanted certain things, asked Ashley for them, Ashley stood firm, said no and Keegan walked

 

Ashley wants a supposed £400 million for the club. Some parties offer a price way under this figure, Ashley stood firm, said no and didnt turn up for certain meetings

 

Venables wanted a longer term contract, Ashley stood firm, said no, Venables turns us down.

 

Fans demonstrate, say "get out", Ashley's legs give way and he says hs is going to give us what we want within 24 hours and without even trying to fight or to reason with the sections that demonstrated.

 

It just doesnt stack up against every other piece of evidence of who he is and how he goes about things. He appears to be very headstrong and will stick with what he wants, what he believes and wont give an inch to anyone.

For me, the reaction to the fans is totally out of character which leads me to think that it was all just a deliciously convenient excuse for him to get out.

 

[Big Geordie]

Robster.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

The way I read it (of course with none of this being fact) is that :

 

Keegan wanted certain things, asked Ashley for them, Ashley stood firm, said no and Keegan walked

 

Ashley wants a supposed £400 million for the club. Some parties offer a price way under this figure, Ashley stood firm, said no and didnt turn up for certain meetings

 

Venables wanted a longer term contract, Ashley stood firm, said no, Venables turns us down.

 

Fans demonstrate, say "get out", Ashley's legs give way and he says hs is going to give us what we want within 24 hours and without even trying to fight or to reason with the sections that demonstrated.

 

It just doesnt stack up against every other piece of evidence of who he is and how he goes about things. He appears to be very headstrong and will stick with what he wants, what he believes and wont give an inch to anyone.

For me, the reaction to the fans is totally out of character which leads me to think that it was all just a deliciously convenient excuse for him to get out.

 

 

Another good analysis.

[fredbob]

The way I read it (of course with none of this being fact) is that :

 

Keegan wanted certain things, asked Ashley for them, Ashley stood firm, said no and Keegan walked

 

Ashley wants a supposed £400 million for the club. Some parties offer a price way under this figure, Ashley stood firm, said no and didnt turn up for certain meetings

 

Venables wanted a longer term contract, Ashley stood firm, said no, Venables turns us down.

 

Fans demonstrate, say "get out", Ashley's legs give way and he says hs is going to give us what we want within 24 hours and without even trying to fight or to reason with the sections that demonstrated.

 

It just doesnt stack up against every other piece of evidence of who he is and how he goes about things. He appears to be very headstrong and will stick with what he wants, what he believes and wont give an inch to anyone.

For me, the reaction to the fans is totally out of character which leads me to think that it was all just a deliciously convenient excuse for him to get out.

 

 

You see, i have absolutely no right saying what you've put is right or wrong so i wont, (although my view is different to yours) but i would say that you've over simplified one aspect of your argument and thats the bit about Ashley selling, you've forgotten to mention that he felt he and his family were unsafe in the place he owned, a fear that was backed up by the assault on a lookalike.

 

To me, that puts a huge slant on your final point.

 

Would you risk the safety of your family knowing it was a very real possilbity? Does anyone even consider that he may of felt that he'd already done alot for the club and may of felt that he deserved more support?

[afar]

The way I read it (of course with none of this being fact) is that :

 

Keegan wanted certain things, asked Ashley for them, Ashley stood firm, said no and Keegan walked

 

Ashley wants a supposed £400 million for the club. Some parties offer a price way under this figure, Ashley stood firm, said no and didnt turn up for certain meetings

 

Venables wanted a longer term contract, Ashley stood firm, said no, Venables turns us down.

 

Fans demonstrate, say "get out", Ashley's legs give way and he says hs is going to give us what we want within 24 hours and without even trying to fight or to reason with the sections that demonstrated.

 

It just doesnt stack up against every other piece of evidence of who he is and how he goes about things. He appears to be very headstrong and will stick with what he wants, what he believes and wont give an inch to anyone.

For me, the reaction to the fans is totally out of character which leads me to think that it was all just a deliciously convenient excuse for him to get out.

 

 

You see, i have absolutely no right saying what you've put is right or wrong so i wont, (although my view is different to yours) but i would say that you've over simplified one aspect of your argument and thats the bit about Ashley selling, you've forgotten to mention that he felt he and his family were unsafe in the place he owned, a fear that was backed up by the assault on a lookalike.

 

To me, that puts a huge slant on your final point.

 

Would you risk the safety of your family knowing it was a very real possilbity? Does anyone even consider that he may of felt that he'd already done alot for the club and may of felt that he deserved more support?

 

This is the family that accompanied him how many times exactly ?

 

 

[magorific]

 

And my major point about your major point was that Ashley's was NOT a "good, much needed long-term plan" - because his plan was to let Dennis Wise overrule our manager on transfers.

 

 

Which shows you choose to beleive the first of my 2 scenarios that i gave - whereas im probably a disciple of the second.

 

You have just as much evidence as i do regarding what actually went on at the club - yet you have blindly backed one man deifintitely over the other with absolutely no knowledge of the truth. I have probably chosen to back the other man becasue i believed in what he had planned for the club and i saw that as being more important than the whims of a manager who's managerial record doesnt warrant such blind faith.

 

You have chosen to back a manager purely and simply becasue of something he achieved 15 years ago for the club, and you believe that that is more imporant for the club in the long run.

 

The difference between our beliefs is that one has already dramatically changed the future of the club for no good reason and the other hasnt.

 

 

 

 

 

I am not backing KK purely and simply because of events of 15 years ago, I'm backing him because all the evidence (including some fed to national Sunday papers by Ashley's camp a week or two into this saga) is that Keegan didn't get players he was promised in the final days of the window, and was landed with Gonzalez and Xisco instead.

 

Your final paragraph is just gibberish.

 

 

 

 

 

Sunday papers? Each paper has its own view and version of the events.

 

And if you say he didnt get the players he was promised - do you know the circumstances if which the players didnt join? Or are you assuming that Wise didnt fancy them and therefore didnt even bother going for them?

 

Im not, my basis of belief is not becasue x undrmined y, or y stabbed z in the back, its that i value the long term plan which Ashley seemed to be pitching over any individual at the club. Supposing, things did go smoother - we could have had Deschamps, we could have had Terim we could even have had Zico by now, would that of been such a resounding disaster?

 

To me, no.

 

If Ashley allowed his director of football to overrule Deschamps, Terim or Zico on transfers, it would be a disaster, yes.

 

 

So no decent retort then? Nice one.

 

WTF? I am challenging the validity of Ashley's long-term plan. That's my retort. Where's yours?

 

How is that a retort? All you've done is made an assumption and stated it as though its a feature of the structure and is part of the plan, which is quite fankly rubbish.

 

Question for you - can you tell me the exact circumstances of Keegans departure steering clear of hear'say and what you read in the papers? Where did Wise undermine him? Why? How has he undermined him? etc... Do you have first hand view of the events??

 

 

 

Clearly (and I'm not referring to your tenuous grasp of grammar and spelling here) you don't know the meaning of the word retort.

That aside, yes, I am making assumptions. An assumption based on the evidence as I see it - EXACTLY as you are doing re Ashley's supposed "masterplan". An interpretation of the evidence which is, quite fankly, rubbish.

 

 

[Robster]

The way I read it (of course with none of this being fact) is that :

 

Keegan wanted certain things, asked Ashley for them, Ashley stood firm, said no and Keegan walked

 

Ashley wants a supposed £400 million for the club. Some parties offer a price way under this figure, Ashley stood firm, said no and didnt turn up for certain meetings

 

Venables wanted a longer term contract, Ashley stood firm, said no, Venables turns us down.

 

Fans demonstrate, say "get out", Ashley's legs give way and he says hs is going to give us what we want within 24 hours and without even trying to fight or to reason with the sections that demonstrated.

 

It just doesnt stack up against every other piece of evidence of who he is and how he goes about things. He appears to be very headstrong and will stick with what he wants, what he believes and wont give an inch to anyone.

For me, the reaction to the fans is totally out of character which leads me to think that it was all just a deliciously convenient excuse for him to get out.

 

 

You see, i have absolutely no right saying what you've put is right or wrong so i wont, (although my view is different to yours) but i would say that you've over simplified one aspect of your argument and thats the bit about Ashley selling, you've forgotten to mention that he felt he and his family were unsafe in the place he owned, a fear that was backed up by the assault on a lookalike.

 

To me, that puts a huge slant on your final point.

 

Would you risk the safety of your family knowing it was a very real possilbity? Does anyone even consider that he may of felt that he'd already done alot for the club and may of felt that he deserved more support?

 

In principle I agree that if you ever feel that you are in a situation whereby your family are in anyway under potential threat, then that situation is best avoided. I certainly woudl not want my daughter subjected to anything like that.

 

However, my cynical side says to me that they did absolutely nothing, not one single thing, to try and calm the situation. The only thing we heard from them in the interim period was the "fact" statement which did nothing more than inflame the already growing unrest and anger. Personally I think that was deliberate.

 

Again, looking at his apparent "I dont give a toss, I will do what I want attitude" doesnt marry up with his "i am not going to the ground I am scared" response.

 

He also didnt have to take his family to the matches during the period of unrest. I know he said he just wanted to enjoy the whole football experience and just have some fun but as the owner of the club, I believe he had a responsibility to act as such (when appropriate) and not always just be the "club owning, one of the lads, Mike Ashley"

[fredbob]

The way I read it (of course with none of this being fact) is that :

 

Keegan wanted certain things, asked Ashley for them, Ashley stood firm, said no and Keegan walked

 

Ashley wants a supposed £400 million for the club. Some parties offer a price way under this figure, Ashley stood firm, said no and didnt turn up for certain meetings

 

Venables wanted a longer term contract, Ashley stood firm, said no, Venables turns us down.

 

Fans demonstrate, say "get out", Ashley's legs give way and he says hs is going to give us what we want within 24 hours and without even trying to fight or to reason with the sections that demonstrated.

 

It just doesnt stack up against every other piece of evidence of who he is and how he goes about things. He appears to be very headstrong and will stick with what he wants, what he believes and wont give an inch to anyone.

For me, the reaction to the fans is totally out of character which leads me to think that it was all just a deliciously convenient excuse for him to get out.

 

 

You see, i have absolutely no right saying what you've put is right or wrong so i wont, (although my view is different to yours) but i would say that you've over simplified one aspect of your argument and thats the bit about Ashley selling, you've forgotten to mention that he felt he and his family were unsafe in the place he owned, a fear that was backed up by the assault on a lookalike.

 

To me, that puts a huge slant on your final point.

 

Would you risk the safety of your family knowing it was a very real possilbity? Does anyone even consider that he may of felt that he'd already done alot for the club and may of felt that he deserved more support?

 

This is the family that accompanied him how many times exactly ?

 

 

 

I wasnt counting.

 

Does it change anything about the statement though. In the exact same situation, are you crass enough and pig headed enough to say you would of stuck around and potentially put yourself and family in danger? Especially if you felt that the club owed you big time.

[fredbob]

 

And my major point about your major point was that Ashley's was NOT a "good, much needed long-term plan" - because his plan was to let Dennis Wise overrule our manager on transfers.

 

 

Which shows you choose to beleive the first of my 2 scenarios that i gave - whereas im probably a disciple of the second.

 

You have just as much evidence as i do regarding what actually went on at the club - yet you have blindly backed one man deifintitely over the other with absolutely no knowledge of the truth. I have probably chosen to back the other man becasue i believed in what he had planned for the club and i saw that as being more important than the whims of a manager who's managerial record doesnt warrant such blind faith.

 

You have chosen to back a manager purely and simply becasue of something he achieved 15 years ago for the club, and you believe that that is more imporant for the club in the long run.

 

The difference between our beliefs is that one has already dramatically changed the future of the club for no good reason and the other hasnt.

 

 

 

 

 

I am not backing KK purely and simply because of events of 15 years ago, I'm backing him because all the evidence (including some fed to national Sunday papers by Ashley's camp a week or two into this saga) is that Keegan didn't get players he was promised in the final days of the window, and was landed with Gonzalez and Xisco instead.

 

Your final paragraph is just gibberish.

 

 

 

 

 

Sunday papers? Each paper has its own view and version of the events.

 

And if you say he didnt get the players he was promised - do you know the circumstances if which the players didnt join? Or are you assuming that Wise didnt fancy them and therefore didnt even bother going for them?

 

Im not, my basis of belief is not becasue x undrmined y, or y stabbed z in the back, its that i value the long term plan which Ashley seemed to be pitching over any individual at the club. Supposing, things did go smoother - we could have had Deschamps, we could have had Terim we could even have had Zico by now, would that of been such a resounding disaster?

 

To me, no.

 

If Ashley allowed his director of football to overrule Deschamps, Terim or Zico on transfers, it would be a disaster, yes.

 

 

So no decent retort then? Nice one.

 

WTF? I am challenging the validity of Ashley's long-term plan. That's my retort. Where's yours?

 

How is that a retort? All you've done is made an assumption and stated it as though its a feature of the structure and is part of the plan, which is quite fankly rubbish.

 

Question for you - can you tell me the exact circumstances of Keegans departure steering clear of hear'say and what you read in the papers? Where did Wise undermine him? Why? How has he undermined him? etc... Do you have first hand view of the events??

 

 

 

Clearly (and I'm not referring to your tenuous grasp of grammar and spelling here) you don't know the meaning of the word retort.

That aside, yes, I am making assumptions. An assumption based on the evidence as I see it - EXACTLY as you are doing re Ashley's supposed "masterplan". An interpretation of the evidence which is, quite fankly, rubbish.

 

 

 

Haha, you pendantic sad b****** - thats the second/third person today who's pointed out poor english - whoopy-f***ing-doo, poor english on an internet message board - how wrong are my priorities, i best ring my mum and dad up and tell them they did a bad job.

 

You still dont get it do you - you have a go at me for poor english (yes it did hit a sore point) and yet you fail to see the massive gap in your logic - ie the level of protests were justified based purely on assumptions from inconsistent evidence written in the newspapers, do you actually know the full circumstance in which Keegan didnt get the players he was promised or are you assuming that Wise wasnt interested from the start and had no intention of purchasing them?

 

Thats the stick you're beating them with and you dont even know if its 100% true. What if i said Keegan was dragging his heels over targets and caused Wise to go over his head - you wouldnt see me protesting with that assumption, you definitely wouldnt see me triyng to force keegan out of his job even if it is what i belive and is based upon much the same "evidence" as you claim to base your belief on.

 

My "assumptions" on Ashleys masterplan was that he was looking to invest in younger players from all around the globe for smaller wages with the aim of making them stars for the club, reducing the clubs inflated wage bills whilst not compromising the qulaity. I fail to see why that is an assumption? i dont need evididence - it WAS the way the club wanted to go - how you can deny that is beyond me.

 

[afar]

The way I read it (of course with none of this being fact) is that :

 

Keegan wanted certain things, asked Ashley for them, Ashley stood firm, said no and Keegan walked

 

Ashley wants a supposed £400 million for the club. Some parties offer a price way under this figure, Ashley stood firm, said no and didnt turn up for certain meetings

 

Venables wanted a longer term contract, Ashley stood firm, said no, Venables turns us down.

 

Fans demonstrate, say "get out", Ashley's legs give way and he says hs is going to give us what we want within 24 hours and without even trying to fight or to reason with the sections that demonstrated.

 

It just doesnt stack up against every other piece of evidence of who he is and how he goes about things. He appears to be very headstrong and will stick with what he wants, what he believes and wont give an inch to anyone.

For me, the reaction to the fans is totally out of character which leads me to think that it was all just a deliciously convenient excuse for him to get out.

 

 

You see, i have absolutely no right saying what you've put is right or wrong so i wont, (although my view is different to yours) but i would say that you've over simplified one aspect of your argument and thats the bit about Ashley selling, you've forgotten to mention that he felt he and his family were unsafe in the place he owned, a fear that was backed up by the assault on a lookalike.

 

To me, that puts a huge slant on your final point.

 

Would you risk the safety of your family knowing it was a very real possilbity? Does anyone even consider that he may of felt that he'd already done alot for the club and may of felt that he deserved more support?

 

This is the family that accompanied him how many times exactly ?

 

 

 

I wasnt counting.

 

Does it change anything about the statement though. In the exact same situation, are you crass enough and pig headed enough to say you would of stuck around and potentially put yourself and family in danger? Especially if you felt that the club owed you big time.

 

He doesn't need to sit in the away end with the supporters to "hang around". Plenty of past chairmen have put up with abuse from the fans before, but not one has been physically assaulted. Westwood, Seymour, McKeag and Shepherd all suffered tremendous amounts of abuse during there time.

 

I don't deny there may be some knacker who'll try and take a swing for him, but the knacker would likely never get close enough to connect. His personal safety was never in danger, this was just a convenient line to make the gullible feel sympathy for him. it obviously worked on you, or does it just help fill your anti KK agenda ?

[fredbob]

The way I read it (of course with none of this being fact) is that :

 

Keegan wanted certain things, asked Ashley for them, Ashley stood firm, said no and Keegan walked

 

Ashley wants a supposed £400 million for the club. Some parties offer a price way under this figure, Ashley stood firm, said no and didnt turn up for certain meetings

 

Venables wanted a longer term contract, Ashley stood firm, said no, Venables turns us down.

 

Fans demonstrate, say "get out", Ashley's legs give way and he says hs is going to give us what we want within 24 hours and without even trying to fight or to reason with the sections that demonstrated.

 

It just doesnt stack up against every other piece of evidence of who he is and how he goes about things. He appears to be very headstrong and will stick with what he wants, what he believes and wont give an inch to anyone.

For me, the reaction to the fans is totally out of character which leads me to think that it was all just a deliciously convenient excuse for him to get out.

 

 

You see, i have absolutely no right saying what you've put is right or wrong so i wont, (although my view is different to yours) but i would say that you've over simplified one aspect of your argument and thats the bit about Ashley selling, you've forgotten to mention that he felt he and his family were unsafe in the place he owned, a fear that was backed up by the assault on a lookalike.

 

To me, that puts a huge slant on your final point.

 

Would you risk the safety of your family knowing it was a very real possilbity? Does anyone even consider that he may of felt that he'd already done alot for the club and may of felt that he deserved more support?

 

In principle I agree that if you ever feel that you are in a situation whereby your family are in anyway under potential threat, then that situation is best avoided. I certainly woudl not want my daughter subjected to anything like that.

 

However, my cynical side says to me that they did absolutely nothing, not one single thing, to try and calm the situation. The only thing we heard from them in the interim period was the "fact" statement which did nothing more than inflame the already growing unrest and anger. Personally I think that was deliberate.

 

Again, looking at his apparent "I dont give a toss, I will do what I want attitude" doesnt marry up with his "i am not going to the ground I am scared" response.

 

He also didnt have to take his family to the matches during the period of unrest. I know he said he just wanted to enjoy the whole football experience and just have some fun but as the owner of the club, I believe he had a responsibility to act as such (when appropriate) and not always just be the "club owning, one of the lads, Mike Ashley"

 

 

Fair enough - at last someone who actually argues there point.

 

To be honest - i still disagree with you - i actually get the feeling that Ashley feels the club should be grateful to him due to debt repayment and may of felt that threaten of physical violence upon him by a huge number of people was just too much and not worth the hassle, especally when he knows people are intersted and theres a helathy profit at the end.

 

I may be supremely naive but i genuinely do belive that he wanted to make nufc a success in the end. Its a shame we didnt see his plan come to frution.

[fredbob]

The way I read it (of course with none of this being fact) is that :

 

Keegan wanted certain things, asked Ashley for them, Ashley stood firm, said no and Keegan walked

 

Ashley wants a supposed £400 million for the club. Some parties offer a price way under this figure, Ashley stood firm, said no and didnt turn up for certain meetings

 

Venables wanted a longer term contract, Ashley stood firm, said no, Venables turns us down.

 

Fans demonstrate, say "get out", Ashley's legs give way and he says hs is going to give us what we want within 24 hours and without even trying to fight or to reason with the sections that demonstrated.

 

It just doesnt stack up against every other piece of evidence of who he is and how he goes about things. He appears to be very headstrong and will stick with what he wants, what he believes and wont give an inch to anyone.

For me, the reaction to the fans is totally out of character which leads me to think that it was all just a deliciously convenient excuse for him to get out.

 

 

You see, i have absolutely no right saying what you've put is right or wrong so i wont, (although my view is different to yours) but i would say that you've over simplified one aspect of your argument and thats the bit about Ashley selling, you've forgotten to mention that he felt he and his family were unsafe in the place he owned, a fear that was backed up by the assault on a lookalike.

 

To me, that puts a huge slant on your final point.

 

Would you risk the safety of your family knowing it was a very real possilbity? Does anyone even consider that he may of felt that he'd already done alot for the club and may of felt that he deserved more support?

 

This is the family that accompanied him how many times exactly ?

 

 

 

I wasnt counting.

 

Does it change anything about the statement though. In the exact same situation, are you crass enough and pig headed enough to say you would of stuck around and potentially put yourself and family in danger? Especially if you felt that the club owed you big time.

 

He doesn't need to sit in the away end with the supporters to "hang around". Plenty of past chairmen have put up with abuse from the fans before, but not one has been physically assaulted. Westwood, Seymour, McKeag and Shepherd all suffered tremendous amounts of abuse during there time.

 

I don't deny there may be some knacker who'll try and take a swing for him, but the knacker would likely never get close enough to connect. His personal safety was never in danger, this was just a convenient line to make the gullible feel sympathy for him. it obviously worked on you, or does it just help fill your anti KK agenda ?

 

I genuinely hand on heart dont have an anti Keegan agenda whatseover - i was extremely happy with what he was doing for the club but i just feel the fans reaction to his departure was far too much and they sacrificed something which they were practically begging for before Ashley took over, a long term sutainable plan and all for what?

 

A manager who is absolutely synonomous with the club but someone whos managerial record doesnt hold a flame to some of the managers out there, and certainly not one that is any better than some of the candidates that were alledely interested in us. (CL Final, UEFA Cup vs Arsenal - semi final Euro 2008, CL/QF)

 

All you're saying begs the question why should he have to avoid sitting where he wants? - isnt there a part of you that would feel the club owed you had you paid of so much debt?

 

The bit in bold is either a massive contradiction or you havent thought it through at least... you;ve basically said there would of been a very good chance of someone trying to attack him but it's just a line to make people feel sorry for him?? 

[Robster]

 

 

Fair enough - at last someone who actually argues there point.

 

To be honest - i still disagree with you - i actually get the feeling that Ashley feels the club should be grateful to him due to debt repayment and may of felt that threaten of physical violence upon him by a huge number of people was just too much and not worth the hassle, especally when he knows people are intersted and theres a helathy profit at the end.

 

I may be supremely naive but i genuinely do belive that he wanted to make nufc a success in the end. Its a shame we didnt see his plan come to frution.

 

 

A large part of me agrees with your last comment and all through the summer, I kept telling people at work here in Birmingham that all the stories about him trying to sell the club were complete rubbish and that Ashley is here for the long run.

 

This whole mess has just put too many doubts in my head, about him and Keegan.

[afar]

The way I read it (of course with none of this being fact) is that :

 

Keegan wanted certain things, asked Ashley for them, Ashley stood firm, said no and Keegan walked

 

Ashley wants a supposed £400 million for the club. Some parties offer a price way under this figure, Ashley stood firm, said no and didnt turn up for certain meetings

 

Venables wanted a longer term contract, Ashley stood firm, said no, Venables turns us down.

 

Fans demonstrate, say "get out", Ashley's legs give way and he says hs is going to give us what we want within 24 hours and without even trying to fight or to reason with the sections that demonstrated.

 

It just doesnt stack up against every other piece of evidence of who he is and how he goes about things. He appears to be very headstrong and will stick with what he wants, what he believes and wont give an inch to anyone.

For me, the reaction to the fans is totally out of character which leads me to think that it was all just a deliciously convenient excuse for him to get out.

 

 

You see, i have absolutely no right saying what you've put is right or wrong so i wont, (although my view is different to yours) but i would say that you've over simplified one aspect of your argument and thats the bit about Ashley selling, you've forgotten to mention that he felt he and his family were unsafe in the place he owned, a fear that was backed up by the assault on a lookalike.

 

To me, that puts a huge slant on your final point.

 

Would you risk the safety of your family knowing it was a very real possilbity? Does anyone even consider that he may of felt that he'd already done alot for the club and may of felt that he deserved more support?

 

This is the family that accompanied him how many times exactly ?

 

 

 

I wasnt counting.

 

Does it change anything about the statement though. In the exact same situation, are you crass enough and pig headed enough to say you would of stuck around and potentially put yourself and family in danger? Especially if you felt that the club owed you big time.

 

He doesn't need to sit in the away end with the supporters to "hang around". Plenty of past chairmen have put up with abuse from the fans before, but not one has been physically assaulted. Westwood, Seymour, McKeag and Shepherd all suffered tremendous amounts of abuse during there time.

 

I don't deny there may be some knacker who'll try and take a swing for him, but the knacker would likely never get close enough to connect. His personal safety was never in danger, this was just a convenient line to make the gullible feel sympathy for him. it obviously worked on you, or does it just help fill your anti KK agenda ?

 

I genuinely hand on heart dont have an anti Keegan agenda whatseover - i was extremely happy with what he was doing for the club but i just feel the fans reaction to his departure was far too much and they sacrificed something which they were practically begging for before Ashley took over, a long term sutainable plan and all for what?

 

A manager who is absolutely synonomous with the club but someone whos managerial record doesnt hold a flame to some of the managers out there, and certainly not one that is any better than some of the candidates that were alledely interested in us. (CL Final, UEFA Cup vs Arsenal - semi final Euro 2008, CL/QF)

 

All you're saying begs the question why should he have to avoid sitting where he wants? - isnt there a part of you that would feel the club owed you had you paid of so much debt?

 

Sure you don't have an anti KK agenda

 

How is this "Club" ? He is the club, he owns it. If you are talking about the fans owing him, we don't owe him a penny, we've only ever put money into the club not taken it out.

 

Paying off the debt only made his asset more saleable or do you buy into the club going out of existence crap ? If so go post in the Macbeth/Scott Parker/Chezgiven snore fest of a thread. 

 

[magorific]

 

And my major point about your major point was that Ashley's was NOT a "good, much needed long-term plan" - because his plan was to let Dennis Wise overrule our manager on transfers.

 

 

Which shows you choose to beleive the first of my 2 scenarios that i gave - whereas im probably a disciple of the second.

 

You have just as much evidence as i do regarding what actually went on at the club - yet you have blindly backed one man deifintitely over the other with absolutely no knowledge of the truth. I have probably chosen to back the other man becasue i believed in what he had planned for the club and i saw that as being more important than the whims of a manager who's managerial record doesnt warrant such blind faith.

 

You have chosen to back a manager purely and simply becasue of something he achieved 15 years ago for the club, and you believe that that is more imporant for the club in the long run.

 

The difference between our beliefs is that one has already dramatically changed the future of the club for no good reason and the other hasnt.

 

 

 

 

 

I am not backing KK purely and simply because of events of 15 years ago, I'm backing him because all the evidence (including some fed to national Sunday papers by Ashley's camp a week or two into this saga) is that Keegan didn't get players he was promised in the final days of the window, and was landed with Gonzalez and Xisco instead.

 

Your final paragraph is just gibberish.

 

 

 

 

 

Sunday papers? Each paper has its own view and version of the events.

 

And if you say he didnt get the players he was promised - do you know the circumstances if which the players didnt join? Or are you assuming that Wise didnt fancy them and therefore didnt even bother going for them?

 

Im not, my basis of belief is not becasue x undrmined y, or y stabbed z in the back, its that i value the long term plan which Ashley seemed to be pitching over any individual at the club. Supposing, things did go smoother - we could have had Deschamps, we could have had Terim we could even have had Zico by now, would that of been such a resounding disaster?

 

To me, no.

 

If Ashley allowed his director of football to overrule Deschamps, Terim or Zico on transfers, it would be a disaster, yes.

 

 

So no decent retort then? Nice one.

 

WTF? I am challenging the validity of Ashley's long-term plan. That's my retort. Where's yours?

 

How is that a retort? All you've done is made an assumption and stated it as though its a feature of the structure and is part of the plan, which is quite fankly rubbish.

 

Question for you - can you tell me the exact circumstances of Keegans departure steering clear of hear'say and what you read in the papers? Where did Wise undermine him? Why? How has he undermined him? etc... Do you have first hand view of the events??

 

 

 

Clearly (and I'm not referring to your tenuous grasp of grammar and spelling here) you don't know the meaning of the word retort.

That aside, yes, I am making assumptions. An assumption based on the evidence as I see it - EXACTLY as you are doing re Ashley's supposed "masterplan". An interpretation of the evidence which is, quite fankly, rubbish.

 

 

 

Haha, you pendantic sad b****** - thats the second/third person today who's pointed out poor english - whoopy-f***ing-doo, poor english on an internet message board - how wrong are my priorities, i best ring my mum and dad up and tell them they did a bad job. 

 

You still dont get it do you - you have a go at me for poor english (yes it did hit a sore point) and yet you fail to see the massive gap in your logic - ie the level of protests were justified based purely on assumptions from inconsistent evidence written in the newspapers, do you actually know the full circumstance in which Keegan didnt get the players he was promised or are you assuming that Wise wasnt interested from the start and had no intention of purchasing them? Thats the stick you're beating them with and you dont even know if its 100% true.

 

My "assumptions" on Ashleys masterplan was that he was looking to invest in younger players from all around the globe for smaller wages with the aim of making them stars for the club, reducing the clubs inflated wage bills whilst not compromising the qulaity. I fail to see why that is an assumption? i dont need evididence - it WAS the way the club wanted to go - how you can deny that is beyond me.

 

 

Firstly, re your English, boo fuckin' hoo. If you challenge someone on semantics (eg the meaning of "retort"), you're asking for trouble.

Secondly, what were fans left to do other than make assumptions? Not a word came from Ashley and co to counter the obvious interpretation: that Keegan walked having been sold short by the board (Wise, Jimenez, whoever).

The main difference between us is that I acknowledge I am making assumptions, whereas you somehow don't see that YOU are making an assumption in believing that Ashley's masterplan did NOT include the fundamental, fatal flaw of authorising his part-time director of football to overrule his manager on transfers.

 

[Liam Liam Liam O]

Paying off the debt only made his asset more saleable or do you buy into the club going out of existence crap ? If so go post in the Macbeth/Scott Parker/Chezgiven snore fest of a thread.