Mike Ashley - Newcastle's best ever chairman/owner.

[Syrette]

Ashley's 'structured' plan as you put it was designed to raise the sell-on value of the club, nothing more.

 

Did he tell you that?

[TRon]

In light of the global financial crash, the situation overspending West Ham now find themselves in, unsustainable Premier league wage bills and football's general level of debt,  Mike Ashley's structured plan for the club and it's finances looks quite visionary.

 

Ashley's 'structured' plan as you put it was designed to raise the sell-on value of the club, nothing more. Clubs with debt are less attractive options, even more so in a credit crunch. Clubs without debt are very attractive options, even more so in a credit crunch. He will find this out very soon despite the on-field mess as he gets himself a healthy profit for his initial investment. That has been his intention all along. I'm not surprised you see it another way though, given your absurd claims in the opening post.

 

A shame that Keegan's walkout and the sub primes demonstration blew such a hole in what now looks like it was a very astute longer term plan for NUFC's prosperity and success.

 

More like KK blew a hole in your hopes that Ashley was the real deal, that's what this is all about. You don't want to admit he isn't and never was the real deal. Instead you'd rather denigrate a man who has done far more for this club than the man you laughingly claim as the best ever chairman or owner we've ever had.

 

Look on the bright side HTT, as he's made the club a more attractive package by clearing the debt, at least there's a better chance of the club getting sold which is after all what everyone wants right?

[Guest Howaythetoon]

Ashley's 'structured' plan as you put it was designed to raise the sell-on value of the club, nothing more.

 

Did he tell you that?

 

He doesn't need to, it is so obvious now. For clarity I am not saying his intention was to sell the club on for a profit a year or so later, the timing has obviously been forced on him or rather the situation has dictated the exit earlier than probably intended. But in general the aim was always to sell the club on for a profit.

[themanupstairs]

Ashley's 'structured' plan as you put it was designed to raise the sell-on value of the club, nothing more.

 

Did he tell you that?

 

He doesn't need to, it is so obvious now. For clarity I am not saying his intention was to sell the club on for a profit a year or so later, the timing has obviously been forced on him or rather the situation has dictated the exit earlier than probably intended. But in general the aim was always to sell the club on for a profit.

 

and that makes him evil because?

[TRon]

Ashley's 'structured' plan as you put it was designed to raise the sell-on value of the club, nothing more.

 

Did he tell you that?

 

He doesn't need to, it is so obvious now. For clarity I am not saying his intention was to sell the club on for a profit a year or so later, the timing has obviously been forced on him or rather the situation has dictated the exit earlier than probably intended. But in general the aim was always to sell the club on for a profit.

 

and that makes him evil because?

 

because only Hall and Shepherd are allowed to walk away from Newcastle with a swag bag.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

In light of the global financial crash, the situation overspending West Ham now find themselves in, unsustainable Premier league wage bills and football's general level of debt,  Mike Ashley's structured plan for the club and it's finances looks quite visionary.

 

Ashley's 'structured' plan as you put it was designed to raise the sell-on value of the club, nothing more. Clubs with debt are less attractive options, even more so in a credit crunch. Clubs without debt are very attractive options, even more so in a credit crunch. He will find this out very soon despite the on-field mess as he gets himself a healthy profit for his initial investment. That has been his intention all along. I'm not surprised you see it another way though, given your absurd claims in the opening post.

 

A shame that Keegan's walkout and the sub primes demonstration blew such a hole in what now looks like it was a very astute longer term plan for NUFC's prosperity and success.

 

More like KK blew a hole in your hopes that Ashley was the real deal, that's what this is all about. You don't want to admit he isn't and never was the real deal. Instead you'd rather denigrate a man who has done far more for this club than the man you laughingly claim as the best ever chairman or owner we've ever had.

 

Look on the bright side HTT, as he's made the club a more attractive package by clearing the debt, at least there's a better chance of the club getting sold which is after all what everyone wants right?

 

In light of the global financial crash, the situation overspending West Ham now find themselves in, unsustainable Premier league wage bills and football's general level of debt,  Mike Ashley's structured plan for the club and it's finances looks quite visionary.

 

Ashley's 'structured' plan as you put it was designed to raise the sell-on value of the club, nothing more. Clubs with debt are less attractive options, even more so in a credit crunch. Clubs without debt are very attractive options, even more so in a credit crunch. He will find this out very soon despite the on-field mess as he gets himself a healthy profit for his initial investment. That has been his intention all along. I'm not surprised you see it another way though, given your absurd claims in the opening post.

 

A shame that Keegan's walkout and the sub primes demonstration blew such a hole in what now looks like it was a very astute longer term plan for NUFC's prosperity and success.

 

More like KK blew a hole in your hopes that Ashley was the real deal, that's what this is all about. You don't want to admit he isn't and never was the real deal. Instead you'd rather denigrate a man who has done far more for this club than the man you laughingly claim as the best ever chairman or owner we've ever had.

 

Look on the bright side HTT, as he's made the club a more attractive package by clearing the debt, at least there's a better chance of the club getting sold which is after all what everyone wants right?

 

Clearing the debt has since been tempered by the loss of a manager, massive fan unrest and a team on the pitch requiring major investment come January so it isn't that attractive an option to would be suitors. Although I suspect the lack of manager, fan unrest and damaged goods on the pitch will not prevent a sale or a huge profit for Ashley. It could prevent more suited or matched owner/s coming in though and indeed put any new owner/s back. Selling a club on the up in terms of the actual football is much easier to continue and grow than one that isn't running on a full bill of health. Whoever comes in will have to arrest, stabilise and then grow rather than going straight for growth. Where fans are concerned and the actual club that could mean more trial and errors in terms of managerial appointments and the transfer market and a few more wasted years of mediocrity. There will be no Abramovic type owner.

 

As for the question of what everyone wants. Regardless of the answer it has been forced on us. Do I want my club to exchange hands once again? To go through the whole charade of appointing another new manager, giving that manager money and seeing what's what? Least of all accept a new mob all over again? No, not really. But what choice do we have? I don't want Ashley here because I can't trust him to do right by the club and with it fans. He has also lost all credibility in my eyes. I can't support that.

[BottledDog]

Ashley's 'structured' plan as you put it was designed to raise the sell-on value of the club, nothing more.

 

Did he tell you that?

 

He doesn't need to, it is so obvious now. For clarity I am not saying his intention was to sell the club on for a profit a year or so later, the timing has obviously been forced on him or rather the situation has dictated the exit earlier than probably intended. But in general the aim was always to sell the club on for a profit.

 

and that makes him evil because?

 

Because to do that succesfully would mean that the he would need to leave the club in a better state than he found it? No wait, that doesn't sound too evil. 

 

Actually, hold on. This structured plan, to clear debts, to build up the scouting network, bring in academy directors and coaches, and invest in youth (that would only see any benefit in some 3 to 5 years) and in the meantime try and bring in further outside investment to compete in the transfer market in the short term, doesn't sound all that evil or 'out for a quick buck' thinking at all!

 

WHAT THE DICKENS!

[Guest Howaythetoon]

Ashley's 'structured' plan as you put it was designed to raise the sell-on value of the club, nothing more.

 

Did he tell you that?

 

He doesn't need to, it is so obvious now. For clarity I am not saying his intention was to sell the club on for a profit a year or so later, the timing has obviously been forced on him or rather the situation has dictated the exit earlier than probably intended. But in general the aim was always to sell the club on for a profit.

 

and that makes him evil because?

 

First of all who is claiming him to be evil? I hope you aren't implying that is the picture I am painting him as. What I will say to those who try and pass him off as some visionary or the greatest chairman or owner in our history ever is to pull the over one. The facts and the decisions don't add up to such claims. On the contrary they show an inexperienced and foolish man suddenly flush with a bit of money buying a football club for all the wrong reasons and along the way pissing off not only the fans and manager (2 of them) but also the national media before riding off in the sunset with a hefty profit while we all scratch our heads wondering what the fuck went on there.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

Ashley's 'structured' plan as you put it was designed to raise the sell-on value of the club, nothing more.

 

Did he tell you that?

 

He doesn't need to, it is so obvious now. For clarity I am not saying his intention was to sell the club on for a profit a year or so later, the timing has obviously been forced on him or rather the situation has dictated the exit earlier than probably intended. But in general the aim was always to sell the club on for a profit.

 

and that makes him evil because?

 

Because to do that succesfully would mean that the he would need to leave the club in a better state than he found it? No wait, that doesn't sound too evil. 

 

Actually, hold on. This structured plan, to clear debts, to build up the scouting network, bring in academy directors and coaches, and invest in youth (that would only see any benefit in some 3 to 5 years) and in the meantime try and bring in further outside investment to compete in the transfer market in the short term, doesn't sound all that evil or 'out for a quick buck' thinking at all!

 

WHAT THE DICKENS!

 

And spitting the dummy out over a few protests mainly populated by bairns doesn't scream committed to me...

 

 

[Guest Mucky01]

Ashley's 'structured' plan as you put it was designed to raise the sell-on value of the club, nothing more.

 

Did he tell you that?

 

He doesn't need to, it is so obvious now. For clarity I am not saying his intention was to sell the club on for a profit a year or so later, the timing has obviously been forced on him or rather the situation has dictated the exit earlier than probably intended. But in general the aim was always to sell the club on for a profit.

 

and that makes him evil because?

 

Because to do that succesfully would mean that the he would need to leave the club in a better state than he found it? No wait, that doesn't sound too evil. 

 

Actually, hold on. This structured plan, to clear debts, to build up the scouting network, bring in academy directors and coaches, and invest in youth (that would only see any benefit in some 3 to 5 years) and in the meantime try and bring in further outside investment to compete in the transfer market in the short term, doesn't sound all that evil or 'out for a quick buck' thinking at all!

 

WHAT THE DICKENS!

And spitting the dummy out over a few protests mainly populated by bairns doesn't scream committed to me...

especially after telling the world that he’s got “balls of steel”.

[fredbob]

In light of the global financial crash, the situation overspending West Ham now find themselves in, unsustainable Premier league wage bills and football's general level of debt,  Mike Ashley's structured plan for the club and it's finances looks quite visionary.

 

Ashley's 'structured' plan as you put it was designed to raise the sell-on value of the club, nothing more. Clubs with debt are less attractive options, even more so in a credit crunch. Clubs without debt are very attractive options, even more so in a credit crunch. He will find this out very soon despite the on-field mess as he gets himself a healthy profit for his initial investment. That has been his intention all along. I'm not surprised you see it another way though, given your absurd claims in the opening post.

 

A shame that Keegan's walkout and the sub primes demonstration blew such a hole in what now looks like it was a very astute longer term plan for NUFC's prosperity and success.

 

More like KK blew a hole in your hopes that Ashley was the real deal, that's what this is all about. You don't want to admit he isn't and never was the real deal. Instead you'd rather denigrate a man who has done far more for this club than the man you laughingly claim as the best ever chairman or owner we've ever had.

 

Look on the bright side HTT, as he's made the club a more attractive package by clearing the debt, at least there's a better chance of the club getting sold which is after all what everyone wants right?

 

In light of the global financial crash, the situation overspending West Ham now find themselves in, unsustainable Premier league wage bills and football's general level of debt,  Mike Ashley's structured plan for the club and it's finances looks quite visionary.

 

Ashley's 'structured' plan as you put it was designed to raise the sell-on value of the club, nothing more. Clubs with debt are less attractive options, even more so in a credit crunch. Clubs without debt are very attractive options, even more so in a credit crunch. He will find this out very soon despite the on-field mess as he gets himself a healthy profit for his initial investment. That has been his intention all along. I'm not surprised you see it another way though, given your absurd claims in the opening post.

 

A shame that Keegan's walkout and the sub primes demonstration blew such a hole in what now looks like it was a very astute longer term plan for NUFC's prosperity and success.

 

More like KK blew a hole in your hopes that Ashley was the real deal, that's what this is all about. You don't want to admit he isn't and never was the real deal. Instead you'd rather denigrate a man who has done far more for this club than the man you laughingly claim as the best ever chairman or owner we've ever had.

 

Look on the bright side HTT, as he's made the club a more attractive package by clearing the debt, at least there's a better chance of the club getting sold which is after all what everyone wants right?

 

Clearing the debt has since been tempered by the loss of a manager, massive fan unrest and a team on the pitch requiring major investment come January so it isn't that attractive an option to would be suitors. Although I suspect the lack of manager, fan unrest and damaged goods on the pitch will not prevent a sale or a huge profit for Ashley. It could prevent more suited or matched owner/s coming in though and indeed put any new owner/s back. Selling a club on the up in terms of the actual football is much easier to continue and grow than one that isn't running on a full bill of health. Whoever comes in will have to arrest, stabilise and then grow rather than going straight for growth. Where fans are concerned and the actual club that could mean more trial and errors in terms of managerial appointments and the transfer market and a few more wasted years of mediocrity. There will be no Abramovic type owner.

 

As for the question of what everyone wants. Regardless of the answer it has been forced on us. Do I want my club to exchange hands once again? To go through the whole charade of appointing another new manager, giving that manager money and seeing what's what? Least of all accept a new mob all over again? No, not really. But what choice do we have? I don't want Ashley here because I can't trust him to do right by the club and with it fans. He has also lost all credibility in my eyes. I can't support that.

 

 

Where does Keegans actions fit into all of this? Do you actually know how much Keegan was involved in the 'downfall' of the club? Or are you assuming thats its all been Ashley and his evil management structure? How many facts do you know regarding the keegan departure which have lead you to lose complete confidence in him? Seriuous question that, becasue as of yet i still havent heard all sides of the story and still dont know what actually went on?

 

I mean, how do you think the club would of progressed if it was allowed to a la West Ham? Surely you recoginse that whats happened at West Ham is 10 times better and healthier than what is happening here.

[BottledDog]

Ashley's 'structured' plan as you put it was designed to raise the sell-on value of the club, nothing more.

 

Did he tell you that?

 

He doesn't need to, it is so obvious now. For clarity I am not saying his intention was to sell the club on for a profit a year or so later, the timing has obviously been forced on him or rather the situation has dictated the exit earlier than probably intended. But in general the aim was always to sell the club on for a profit.

 

and that makes him evil because?

 

Because to do that succesfully would mean that the he would need to leave the club in a better state than he found it? No wait, that doesn't sound too evil. 

 

Actually, hold on. This structured plan, to clear debts, to build up the scouting network, bring in academy directors and coaches, and invest in youth (that would only see any benefit in some 3 to 5 years) and in the meantime try and bring in further outside investment to compete in the transfer market in the short term, doesn't sound all that evil or 'out for a quick buck' thinking at all!

 

WHAT THE DICKENS!

 

And spitting the dummy out over a few protests mainly populated by bairns doesn't scream committed to me...

 

 

 

It was not just bairns, it was supporter groups and fanzines threatening that as long as he stayed there would be active boycotts agains himself and the club, and that he was not welcome to go to matches and continue to have the pleasure of being an active supporter. You could certainly level that he was nieve in thinking that he would be able to always get to do that, but I think the backlash shocked him a fair bit. If his reason for investing in the club was simply to sit back and use the club to make a profit then the protests wouldn't have been half as successful in forcing him out. A hard nosed consortium wouldn't have taken a blind bit of notice.

 

But that's by the by. The argument was over whether he was simply here to make a profit. My arguement was that that didn't matter one jot if true, as all that he was trying to put in place suggested that he was not here to asset strip and was not doing anything intentionally to harm the long term future of the club. The opposite in fact.

 

That's not to say he was right for the club or hasn't royally fucked up in some of his decisions. He has. Fuck knows where we go from here.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

It was not just bairns, it was supporter groups and fanzines threatening that as long as he stayed there would be active boycotts agains himself and the club, and that he was not welcome to go to matches and continue to have the pleasure of being an active supporter. You could certainly level that he was nieve in thinking that he would be able to always get to do that, but I think the backlash shocked him a fair bit. If his reason for investing in the club was simply to sit back and use the club to make a profit then the protests wouldn't have been half as successful in forcing him out. A hard nosed consortium wouldn't have taken a blind bit of notice.

 

If he ignored the protests and stayed on or declared he was going nowhere, this asset of his that owes him quite a bit of money would have lost considerable value and real money quickly as fans would have followed KK in walking if he stayed on, resulting in any resale value he wanted plummeting to such levels, a heavy loss would have been on the cards. This is why he decided to quit, to protect his investment. Not because he was heartbroken or in fear of his life or some such nonsense which he tried to peddle and amazingly some bought. Of course he was shocked by the backlash but this never forced him to sell up, it just brought the inevitability of it all much much more forward. Selling the club on has always been the aim from day one hence the constant rumours by the media who we have sadly since found out knew more than we dared considered, far more.

 

But that's by the by. The argument was over whether he was simply here to make a profit. My arguement was that that didn't matter one jot if true, as all that he was trying to put in place suggested that he was not here to asset strip and was not doing anything intentionally to harm the long term future of the club. The opposite in fact.

 

That's not to say he was right for the club or hasn't royally f***ed up in some of his decisions. He has. f*** knows where we go from here.

 

There are no real assets to strip so I can at least agree with you on that. He was/is here to make a profit though and while it may not matter a jot to you this motive and intention affected every decision he ever made, which as things turned out, were more negative than positive. Did he mean to fuck things up, especially in the way it has since transpired? I doubt it. He just wanted his cake and to eat it.

 

How people can defend him is beyond me, he is clearly a lying, conniving, manipulating and wholly untrustworthy owner when confronted with the truth or some kind of responsibility, a man whose motives are pure self interest as we are now finding out. I mean it took the grievances of the players to get him to act in appointing an interim manager, it took the angry protest of fans to get him to own up to his true motives and it took a good man with Newcastle United in his heart to expose the sham that was his ownership of Newcastle United for what it is - another business trip at the end of the day, one in which he'll walk away from all the more richer, as he intended from the outset. KK or no KK, protests or no protests.

 

That's all I need to know. Ironically I don't mind people profiting from the club especially someone who actually puts money in from their own pockets. I expect people to be as committed as we are though and I deplore being lied to and patronised. Sir John Hall, the rightful owner of the title of this thread gets a lot of stick but at least he was committed to the club and from the off stated his intentions which were both financial and personal and of course football related.

[OzzieMandias]

I must have missed the bit where Ashley "owned up to his true motives".

[Guest Howaythetoon]

I must have missed the bit where Ashley "owned up to his true motives".

 

Its in the small print...

[fredbob]

I must have missed the bit where Ashley "owned up to his true motives".

 

 

You think you've got it bad - I'm the only person here who actually doesnt know what happened at the club regarding Keegan, the people who know everything about Ashley's intention and what happneded at the club wont tell me  what happened either...

[BottledDog]

How people can defend him is beyond me, he is clearly a lying, conniving, manipulating and wholly untrustworthy owner when confronted with the truth or some kind of responsibility, a man whose motives are pure self interest as we are now finding out. I mean it took the grievances of the players to get him to act in appointing an interim manager, it took the angry protest of fans to get him to own up to his true motives and it took a good man with Newcastle United in his heart to expose the sham that was his ownership of Newcastle United for what it is - another business trip at the end of the day, one in which he'll walk away from all the more richer, as he intended from the outset. KK or no KK, protests or no protests.

 

Impossible to argue with.

 

When you use emotional language like 'it took a good man with Newcastle United in his heart to expose the sham', seriously, what can I say. You have a very sure view of Ashley, that he is clearly 'lying, conniving, manipulating and wholly untrustworthy', but for me there is very little about his intentions or the events that led to where we find ourselves that is particularly clear and straightforward.

 

 

Oh, and I think most of the defending of the guy is only in reaction to some of the over the top attacks, not in any sense of loyalty to the er... fat cockney bastard. 

[fredbob]

How people can defend him is beyond me, he is clearly a lying, conniving, manipulating and wholly untrustworthy owner when confronted with the truth or some kind of responsibility, a man whose motives are pure self interest as we are now finding out. I mean it took the grievances of the players to get him to act in appointing an interim manager, it took the angry protest of fans to get him to own up to his true motives and it took a good man with Newcastle United in his heart to expose the sham that was his ownership of Newcastle United for what it is - another business trip at the end of the day, one in which he'll walk away from all the more richer, as he intended from the outset. KK or no KK, protests or no protests.

 

Impossible to argue with.

 

When you use emotional language like 'it took a good man with Newcastle United in his heart to expose the sham', seriously, what can I say. You have a very sure view of Ashley, that he is clearly 'lying, conniving, manipulating and wholly untrustworthy', but for me there is very little about his intentions or the events that led to where we find ourselves that is particularly clear and straightforward.

 

 

Oh, and I think most of the defending of the guy is only in reaction to some of the over the top attacks, not in any sense of loyalty to the er... fat cockney b******. 

 

Impossible to argue with - mainly becasue i agree with it.

 

Ill ask for a 15th time, whats the whole story in the Ashley vs Keegan saga? Some facts would be nice.

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

Ashley's 'structured' plan as you put it was designed to raise the sell-on value of the club, nothing more.

 

Did he tell you that?

 

He doesn't need to, it is so obvious now. For clarity I am not saying his intention was to sell the club on for a profit a year or so later, the timing has obviously been forced on him or rather the situation has dictated the exit earlier than probably intended. But in general the aim was always to sell the club on for a profit.

 

Fucking hell

[quayside]

How people can defend him is beyond me, he is clearly a lying, conniving, manipulating and wholly untrustworthy owner when confronted with the truth or some kind of responsibility, a man whose motives are pure self interest as we are now finding out. I mean it took the grievances of the players to get him to act in appointing an interim manager, it took the angry protest of fans to get him to own up to his true motives and it took a good man with Newcastle United in his heart to expose the sham that was his ownership of Newcastle United for what it is - another business trip at the end of the day, one in which he'll walk away from all the more richer, as he intended from the outset. KK or no KK, protests or no protests.

 

Impossible to argue with.

 

When you use emotional language like 'it took a good man with Newcastle United in his heart to expose the sham', seriously, what can I say. You have a very sure view of Ashley, that he is clearly 'lying, conniving, manipulating and wholly untrustworthy', but for me there is very little about his intentions or the events that led to where we find ourselves that is particularly clear and straightforward.

 

Oh, and I think most of the defending of the guy is only in reaction to some of the over the top attacks, not in any sense of loyalty to the er... fat cockney b******. 

 

It's true that it isn't clear what his intentions have been and people can put all sorts of interpretations on the various things he's done:

 

- investing nothing in the first team squad for two consecutive transfer windows

- sacking Allardyce (and paying him off with several million in the process)

- the clumsy handling of the courtship of Redknapp that followed the sacking of Allardyce

- appointing Keegan

- appointing Wise, Jimenez. Llambias etc,

- focusing on bringing young players in

- the rumours about attempts to sell off first team squad members are just that, rumours. But Milner was sold for a very good price and from what KK was saying at the time it looks as though he thought that money was there for him to reinvest as he saw fit. So either KK was playing some sort of devious end game or he was duped I think.

- backing Wise and praising him for his efforts in the Summer transfer window. I've not yet met a fan who wasn't seriously underwhelmed by our business in the window, maybe someone on here  has got something to say on that?

 

So is Ashley schizophrenic or what?

 

My view is that he started out with good intentions but has found himself involved in a business in which he is way out of his depth. And by out of his depth I mean his abilties to run a sustainable business as well as his financial resources. The fact that he did no due diligence before he shelled out £130m says it all for me. He hadn't got a clue what he was buying. He is gifted at making money for himself though and will do so again when he sells on - but what a mess he has created. 

[NE5]

A lot of the statements on here seem to be based on the premise that because he's the owner, everything that's happened must be his fault.

 

There was a lot that he got right. But a Chairman once said that all the decisions that he made paled into significance beside the one concerning the choice of manager. And Ashley got that wrong, at least for the plan that he had in mind.

 

Where he can't be blamed is for the manner and timing of Keegan's departure, which has caused so much damage. Keegan has a lot to answer for there.

 

what a load of rot.

 

Ref your first paragraph - plenty of people have said in the past, when it suited them, everything stops with the owner [personally I don't necessarily agree] but why move the goalposts ?

 

2nd paragraph - I really don't think he did too much right at all

 

3rd para - of course he's to blame. He even had a chance to reverse the situation but didn't. The manager is his most important employee, so how the hell can you absove him of any blame

 

 

 

 

< sigh >

 

please tell us what you disagree with and why

 

No mate, it's not that I disagree necessarily. I just found it funny that you made sure to cover all your bases from criticism with a good all-round use of the English language. Everything here is Ashley's fault, yet not everything was Shepherd's fault.

 

edit: I thought bobyule's post was very reasoned, and told it like it is

 

welll........I think its amusing that people who blamed Shepherd for everything are now making excuses for Ashley.........which is why I said so 

 

At the end of the day, we are in the biggest s*** for about 20 years, and a million miles away from equalling those european and Champs league qualifications never mind doing better.

 

 

but we are not a million miles away from where we were for most roeders 2nd season or where we were when souness got the boot.. why do you only quote champs lge etc as examples of fred's work and not the drop from those heights or the appointment of 3 poor managers off the spin ?

 

basically, the desire to be successful on the pitch was there whereas now it is only a desire to make a profit, rather than succeed on the pitch. The trouble is, lack of ambition on the pitch is eventually reflected in falling attendances, anybody who supported the club pre-1992 can tell you this. 

 

Which should be pretty obvious to everyone now.

 

For about the 100th time, everybody makes poor choices of manager sometimes, and nobody picks a winner every time which is of course logically impossible. I've gave you numerous examples on many occasions and I'm not doing it again.

 

 

 

[NE5]

In light of the global financial crash, the situation overspending West Ham now find themselves in, unsustainable Premier league wage bills and football's general level of debt,  Mike Ashley's structured plan for the club and it's finances looks quite visionary.

 

A shame that Keegan's walkout and the sub primes demonstration blew such a hole in what now looks like it was a very astute longer term plan for NUFC's prosperity and success.

 

I'm sure it would be a great success, filling the ground with the excitement of a promotion challenge having brought 2nd class footballers to try and do it.

 

 

[NE5]

^ yep, the Doug Ellis vision.

 

WIKI: Ellis was a controversial chairman and major shareholder of Aston Villa for two separate spells; the first being from 1968 to 1975. Ellis was replaced as chairman and finally ousted from the board in 1979. During his absence Aston Villa enjoyed its greatest period of success in modern times, winning the Football League title in 1981 and the European Cup in 1982.

Ellis returned as chairman in 1982 and remained there until selling to Randy Lerner in 2006. Most fans blame him for the decline of the club after the European Cup victory in 1981/2. Within five years the club was relegated from the top flight, with many of the European Cup-winning team being sold to other teams.

Supporters and former club managers criticised Ellis's alleged lack of ambition[5] [6], noting that the club often struggled to bring in top players. Ellis responded that his approach had always been one of financial prudence, helping to avoid the fate of big-borrowing clubs such as Leeds United.

 

no debts or vision there either.

 

mick always said that Ellis was a good chairman, better than you know who.

 

Sound like Ashley is cut from the same cloth, which explains something anyway.

 

 

[OzzieMandias]

For about the 100th time, everybody makes poor choices of manager sometimes, and nobody picks a winner every time which is of course logically impossible.

 

 

But only a real wanker gets it wrong four times out of five.

[Syrette]

All of NE5's posts just seem to merge into one nowadays, for me at least.

 

It is as if he has a random text generator filled with terms and phrases such as the infamous "pre-1992", "Champions League places", " baggy lad", " mackems.gif", "not Shepherd's fault", ""bandwagon jumper" etc that posts automatic replies to any message relating to previous regimes.