Keegan to launch £9m unfair dismissal claim?

[ChezGiven]

Becoming a PLC made a lot of people rich but made the football club poor.

 

Stunning. Just utterly stunning. You claim you understand everything yet get this so the wrong way round.

 

The end result of the PLC - Halls and Shepherds = rich; NUFC = no money in the bank. I agree, stunning.

 

What my point has been all along (using hindsight I might add) is that going to a PLC hasn't really helped the club because it hasn't achieved anything since where as beforehand as a private company it was performing much better, on and off the pitch.

 

Genuine question; are you retarded? Are you assigning cause and effect in these simple observations? I think you are aren't you

 

The results speak for themselves: Prior to PLC NUFC on and off the pitch were doing great, after PLC not so great. I've already said I don't put the PLC at fault for that if that's what you're thinking I'm saying, but it hasn't helped us exactly has it.

 

The Halls and Shepherd did not pocket the money from the floatation, they bought shares and received dividends. If they had taken the money, that would have been embezzlement.

 

The poor performance of the shares was a negative for the investors but the amount raised by the floatation remains the same and it went into the club's coffers.

 

I give up.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

 

There's mine

 

http://www.ukbusinesspark.co.uk/ned66412.htm

 

Where's yours?

 

You're insane btw, where do you think all the money came from that was spent in the first few seasons in the premiership? From the money we earnt in the second division?

 

No it came from the float... where did it come from? Sky money, merchandise money, shirt and kit sponsorship money, season ticket money. The club were self financed and when Sir John took over went from making less than £4m a year to making £34m in 2 years, that's where it come from. In our promotion season we spent less than £5m net on players and the same the following season roughly. Stadium development was part funded by grants following the Taylor report.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

Becoming a PLC made a lot of people rich but made the football club poor.

 

Stunning. Just utterly stunning. You claim you understand everything yet get this so the wrong way round.

 

The end result of the PLC - Halls and Shepherds = rich; NUFC = no money in the bank. I agree, stunning.

 

What my point has been all along (using hindsight I might add) is that going to a PLC hasn't really helped the club because it hasn't achieved anything since where as beforehand as a private company it was performing much better, on and off the pitch.

 

Genuine question; are you retarded? Are you assigning cause and effect in these simple observations? I think you are aren't you

 

The results speak for themselves: Prior to PLC NUFC on and off the pitch were doing great, after PLC not so great. I've already said I don't put the PLC at fault for that if that's what you're thinking I'm saying, but it hasn't helped us exactly has it.

 

The Halls and Shepherd did not pocket the money from the floatation, they bought shares and received dividends. If they had taken the money, that would have been embezzlement.

 

The poor performance of the shares was a negative for the investors but the amount raised by the floatation remains the same and it went into the club's coffers.

 

I give up.

 

Of course it went into the club's coffers, obviously, but you've went from claiming it went on players which has since been proven incorrect even by your own quotes and now using those quotes you're saying it went on debt and stadium expansion plans when in reality there was no debt and no stadium expansion plans that materialised at that time. Make your fucking mind up Mr expert. As for the Halls and Shepherds I didn't say they trousered the float money, that's you once again assuming that's what I'm saying like you've misread most of my comments. Did they or did they not get rich from the club going PLC and did NUFC prior to delisting after Ashley took over have any money? No it fucking didn't. That's what I'm saying.

[ChezGiven]

 

There's mine

 

http://www.ukbusinesspark.co.uk/ned66412.htm

 

Where's yours?

 

You're insane btw, where do you think all the money came from that was spent in the first few seasons in the premiership? From the money we earnt in the second division?

 

No it came from the float... where did it come from? Sky money, merchandise money, shirt and kit sponsorship money, season ticket money. The club were self financed and when Sir John took over went from making less than £4m a year to making £34m in 2 years, that's where it come from. In our promotion season we spent less than £5m net on players and the same the following season roughly. Stadium development was part funded by grants following the Taylor report.

 

I was referring to seasons 92-95, when we spent a bit of money to get out of the 2nd and then again when we went up and again the following season. The TV money would have just hit the accounts and the end of the financial year following promotion. On the basis that we had a revenue of 4m, i ask again, where did the money come from that we were able to use to rise up to that position? You're 34m figure is the culmination of the success not a reflection of how we got there.

 

Also, if we had loads of money, why did we eventually need to sell Cole to buy Ginola and Ferdinand? Dont answer that, its not important, it just shows that we were at the limits of our finances even then.

[ChezGiven]

Becoming a PLC made a lot of people rich but made the football club poor.

 

Stunning. Just utterly stunning. You claim you understand everything yet get this so the wrong way round.

 

The end result of the PLC - Halls and Shepherds = rich; NUFC = no money in the bank. I agree, stunning.

 

What my point has been all along (using hindsight I might add) is that going to a PLC hasn't really helped the club because it hasn't achieved anything since where as beforehand as a private company it was performing much better, on and off the pitch.

 

Genuine question; are you retarded? Are you assigning cause and effect in these simple observations? I think you are aren't you

 

The results speak for themselves: Prior to PLC NUFC on and off the pitch were doing great, after PLC not so great. I've already said I don't put the PLC at fault for that if that's what you're thinking I'm saying, but it hasn't helped us exactly has it.

 

The Halls and Shepherd did not pocket the money from the floatation, they bought shares and received dividends. If they had taken the money, that would have been embezzlement.

 

The poor performance of the shares was a negative for the investors but the amount raised by the floatation remains the same and it went into the club's coffers.

 

I give up.

 

Of course it went into the club's coffers, obviously, but you've went from claiming it went on players which has since been proven incorrect even by your own quotes and now using those quotes you're saying it went on debt and stadium expansion plans when in reality there was no debt and no stadium expansion plans that materialised at that time. Make your fucking mind up Mr expert. As for the Halls and Shepherds I didn't say they trousered the float money, that's you once again assuming that's what I'm saying like you've misread most of my comments. Did they or did they not get rich from the club going PLC and did NUFC prior to delisting after Ashley took over have any money? No it fucking didn't. That's what I'm saying.

 

I said it went into the coffers, you said it made Hall and Shepherd rich. You sir, are talking through your arse.

 

I also said it doesnt matter what it was spent on (it wasnt a hypothecated money, it went into the coffers allowing us to spend money, whether that is on players, stadium or whatever is irrelevant, its all money).

 

Did they get rich from the club going to PLC? No, they got rich when it went back to private ownership.

 

Quite what the financial situation in 2007 has to do with the floatation, only you know.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

Oh and this I give up/retard crap doesn't work with me Chez. If you actually stuck to reading what people are saying or rather understanding what they are saying rather than trying to impose your own version of what people are saying (which is wrong) seemingly blinded by your never ending quest to demonstrate to the world you have knowledge of these matters (big deal) you'll be able to debate things on a level appropriate rather than forcing a debate to turn into some kind of literal meaning of who said what which the debates about the old board always end up as.

[Syrette]

this.

 

Far more sense than a handful of posters who simply spout rubbish, cliches and hindsight galore and drag the message forum down. It also applies to any future owners, the last ones may have done their time, but until someone matches their sustained best period, they haven't matched them either.

 

Does anybody think winning a one off trophy means its more successful than Keegan ? Does anybody think that Dalglish didn't have a track record to match anybody ?

 

Not many managers are suited to Newcastle more than Keegan, despite the sniping of him.

 

On topic. If someone is going to walk away with the clubs money, I would rather it was Keegan than Ashley. Thats football.

 

 

 

 

Quite possibly the most ironic post in forum history.

 

 

Just for the record; Parky called Ramos "clueless". Me and Ozzie pointed out that that can't be true since he has done well in previous seasons. NE5 and the people who stick up for what he says without question twisted what we were saying. Ramos has been successful at previous clubs whilst winning something, Keegan has been successful at previous clubs without winning something (aside from promotions). They've both been successful in their own way, neither are clueless.

[ChezGiven]

Oh and this I give up/retard crap doesn't work with me Chez. If you actually stuck to reading what people are saying or rather understanding what they are saying rather than trying to impose your own version of what people are saying (which is wrong) seemingly blinded by your never ending quest to demonstrate to the world you have knowledge of these matters (big deal) you'll be able to debate things on a level appropriate rather than forcing a debate to turn into some kind of literal meaning of who said what which the debates about the old board always end up as.

 

I think i've been quite restrained. Dont get too huffy about it.

 

I've responded in detail to the points you've made, dont try and turn this into something it isnt.

[Guest icemanblue]

Oh and this I give up/retard crap doesn't work with me Chez. If you actually stuck to reading what people are saying or rather understanding what they are saying rather than trying to impose your own version of what people are saying (which is wrong) seemingly blinded by your never ending quest to demonstrate to the world you have knowledge of these matters (big deal) you'll be able to debate things on a level appropriate rather than forcing a debate to turn into some kind of literal meaning of who said what which the debates about the old board always end up as.

 

One sentence! Wowzer! 

[Guest Howaythetoon]

 

There's mine

 

http://www.ukbusinesspark.co.uk/ned66412.htm

 

Where's yours?

 

You're insane btw, where do you think all the money came from that was spent in the first few seasons in the premiership? From the money we earnt in the second division?

 

No it came from the float... where did it come from? Sky money, merchandise money, shirt and kit sponsorship money, season ticket money. The club were self financed and when Sir John took over went from making less than £4m a year to making £34m in 2 years, that's where it come from. In our promotion season we spent less than £5m net on players and the same the following season roughly. Stadium development was part funded by grants following the Taylor report.

 

I was referring to seasons 92-95, when we spent a bit of money to get out of the 2nd and then again when we went up and again the following season. The TV money would have just hit the accounts and the end of the financial year following promotion. On the basis that we had a revenue of 4m, i ask again, where did the money come from that we were able to use to rise up to that position? You're 34m figure is the culmination of the success not a reflection of how we got there.

 

Also, if we had loads of money, why did we eventually need to sell Cole to buy Ginola and Ferdinand? Dont answer that, its not important, it just shows that we were at the limits of our finances even then.

 

The money come from the money pouring in, the club budgeted accordingly as I've explained which you seem unable to grasp despite it being fucking obvious. As for the 34m, of course it is a culmination of our success, but it is also a source of how we got there. Again the club budgeted accordingly. As for the sale of Cole, the club didn't need the money and that it was never a factor behind the sale (IIRC), KK actually prompted that sale and the board were shocked he wanted to sell Cole.

[ChezGiven]

 

There's mine

 

http://www.ukbusinesspark.co.uk/ned66412.htm

 

Where's yours?

 

You're insane btw, where do you think all the money came from that was spent in the first few seasons in the premiership? From the money we earnt in the second division?

 

No it came from the float... where did it come from? Sky money, merchandise money, shirt and kit sponsorship money, season ticket money. The club were self financed and when Sir John took over went from making less than £4m a year to making £34m in 2 years, that's where it come from. In our promotion season we spent less than £5m net on players and the same the following season roughly. Stadium development was part funded by grants following the Taylor report.

 

I was referring to seasons 92-95, when we spent a bit of money to get out of the 2nd and then again when we went up and again the following season. The TV money would have just hit the accounts and the end of the financial year following promotion. On the basis that we had a revenue of 4m, i ask again, where did the money come from that we were able to use to rise up to that position? You're 34m figure is the culmination of the success not a reflection of how we got there.

 

Also, if we had loads of money, why did we eventually need to sell Cole to buy Ginola and Ferdinand? Dont answer that, its not important, it just shows that we were at the limits of our finances even then.

 

The money come from the money pouring in, the club budgeted accordingly as I've explained which you seem unable to grasp despite it being fucking obvious. As for the 34m, of course it is a culmination of our success, but it is also a source of how we got there. Again the club budgeted accordingly. As for the sale of Cole, the club didn't need the money and that it was never a factor behind the sale (IIRC), KK actually prompted that sale and the board were shocked he wanted to sell Cole.

 

I've quoted a UK Business source to back up my view that the floatation was to help the club's "expansion plans".

 

Where's your source to back up your view it was to make the Halls and Shepherd richer?

[Guest Howaythetoon]

Becoming a PLC made a lot of people rich but made the football club poor.

 

Stunning. Just utterly stunning. You claim you understand everything yet get this so the wrong way round.

 

The end result of the PLC - Halls and Shepherds = rich; NUFC = no money in the bank. I agree, stunning.

 

What my point has been all along (using hindsight I might add) is that going to a PLC hasn't really helped the club because it hasn't achieved anything since where as beforehand as a private company it was performing much better, on and off the pitch.

 

Genuine question; are you retarded? Are you assigning cause and effect in these simple observations? I think you are aren't you

 

The results speak for themselves: Prior to PLC NUFC on and off the pitch were doing great, after PLC not so great. I've already said I don't put the PLC at fault for that if that's what you're thinking I'm saying, but it hasn't helped us exactly has it.

 

The Halls and Shepherd did not pocket the money from the floatation, they bought shares and received dividends. If they had taken the money, that would have been embezzlement.

 

The poor performance of the shares was a negative for the investors but the amount raised by the floatation remains the same and it went into the club's coffers.

 

I give up.

 

Of course it went into the club's coffers, obviously, but you've went from claiming it went on players which has since been proven incorrect even by your own quotes and now using those quotes you're saying it went on debt and stadium expansion plans when in reality there was no debt and no stadium expansion plans that materialised at that time. Make your f***ing mind up Mr expert. As for the Halls and Shepherds I didn't say they trousered the float money, that's you once again assuming that's what I'm saying like you've misread most of my comments. Did they or did they not get rich from the club going PLC and did NUFC prior to delisting after Ashley took over have any money? No it f***ing didn't. That's what I'm saying.

 

I said it went into the coffers, you said it made Hall and Shepherd rich. You sir, are talking through your arse.

 

I also said it doesnt matter what it was spent on (it wasnt a hypothecated money, it went into the coffers allowing us to spend money, whether that is on players, stadium or whatever is irrelevant, its all money).

 

Did they get rich from the club going to PLC? No, they got rich when it went back to private ownership.

 

Quite what the financial situation in 2007 has to do with the floatation, only you know.

 

No no no, I said the Halls and Shepherd become rich as a result of becoming a PLC, which they did. FS become a multi-millionaire before Ashley bought his shares off the back of NUFC and as a major shareholder of the PLC he was always going to become rich as a result of the club becoming a PLC anyway. I have never denied the float money didn't go into the coffers btw, I just disputed what it went on which you have a few times now changed your mind on.

[ChezGiven]

Becoming a PLC made a lot of people rich but made the football club poor.

 

Stunning. Just utterly stunning. You claim you understand everything yet get this so the wrong way round.

 

The end result of the PLC - Halls and Shepherds = rich; NUFC = no money in the bank. I agree, stunning.

 

What my point has been all along (using hindsight I might add) is that going to a PLC hasn't really helped the club because it hasn't achieved anything since where as beforehand as a private company it was performing much better, on and off the pitch.

 

Genuine question; are you retarded? Are you assigning cause and effect in these simple observations? I think you are aren't you

 

The results speak for themselves: Prior to PLC NUFC on and off the pitch were doing great, after PLC not so great. I've already said I don't put the PLC at fault for that if that's what you're thinking I'm saying, but it hasn't helped us exactly has it.

 

The Halls and Shepherd did not pocket the money from the floatation, they bought shares and received dividends. If they had taken the money, that would have been embezzlement.

 

The poor performance of the shares was a negative for the investors but the amount raised by the floatation remains the same and it went into the club's coffers.

 

I give up.

 

Of course it went into the club's coffers, obviously, but you've went from claiming it went on players which has since been proven incorrect even by your own quotes and now using those quotes you're saying it went on debt and stadium expansion plans when in reality there was no debt and no stadium expansion plans that materialised at that time. Make your f***ing mind up Mr expert. As for the Halls and Shepherds I didn't say they trousered the float money, that's you once again assuming that's what I'm saying like you've misread most of my comments. Did they or did they not get rich from the club going PLC and did NUFC prior to delisting after Ashley took over have any money? No it f***ing didn't. That's what I'm saying.

 

I said it went into the coffers, you said it made Hall and Shepherd rich. You sir, are talking through your arse.

 

I also said it doesnt matter what it was spent on (it wasnt a hypothecated money, it went into the coffers allowing us to spend money, whether that is on players, stadium or whatever is irrelevant, its all money).

 

Did they get rich from the club going to PLC? No, they got rich when it went back to private ownership.

 

Quite what the financial situation in 2007 has to do with the floatation, only you know.

 

No no no, I said the Halls and Shepherd become rich as a result of becoming a PLC, which they did. FS become a multi-millionaire before Ashley bought his shares off the back of NUFC and as a major shareholder of the PLC he was always going to become rich as a result of the club becoming a PLC anyway. I have never denied the float money didn't go into the coffers btw, I just disputed what it went on which you have a few times now changed your mind on.

 

Simple example for you. I earn money from 4 seperate sources. It all goes into one bank account. I then go on holiday, paid out of the bank account. which source did it come from?

 

As no-one can say which pound earned from which source went on which expenditure, its irrelevant to the basic point; the floatation generated extra money to fund the club's expansion plans and that fact does not justify Keegan walking.

 

The Halls and Shepherd spent money on the floatation as they bought shares. They made money from this in 2007 not at the time.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

 

There's mine

 

http://www.ukbusinesspark.co.uk/ned66412.htm

 

Where's yours?

 

You're insane btw, where do you think all the money came from that was spent in the first few seasons in the premiership? From the money we earnt in the second division?

 

No it came from the float... where did it come from? Sky money, merchandise money, shirt and kit sponsorship money, season ticket money. The club were self financed and when Sir John took over went from making less than £4m a year to making £34m in 2 years, that's where it come from. In our promotion season we spent less than £5m net on players and the same the following season roughly. Stadium development was part funded by grants following the Taylor report.

 

I was referring to seasons 92-95, when we spent a bit of money to get out of the 2nd and then again when we went up and again the following season. The TV money would have just hit the accounts and the end of the financial year following promotion. On the basis that we had a revenue of 4m, i ask again, where did the money come from that we were able to use to rise up to that position? You're 34m figure is the culmination of the success not a reflection of how we got there.

 

Also, if we had loads of money, why did we eventually need to sell Cole to buy Ginola and Ferdinand? Dont answer that, its not important, it just shows that we were at the limits of our finances even then.

 

The money come from the money pouring in, the club budgeted accordingly as I've explained which you seem unable to grasp despite it being f***ing obvious. As for the 34m, of course it is a culmination of our success, but it is also a source of how we got there. Again the club budgeted accordingly. As for the sale of Cole, the club didn't need the money and that it was never a factor behind the sale (IIRC), KK actually prompted that sale and the board were shocked he wanted to sell Cole.

 

I've quoted a UK Business source to back up my view that the floatation was to help the club's "expansion plans".

 

Where's your source to back up your view it was to make the Halls and Shepherd richer?

 

I never said it (the float money) went into their pockets though.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

Oh and this I give up/retard crap doesn't work with me Chez. If you actually stuck to reading what people are saying or rather understanding what they are saying rather than trying to impose your own version of what people are saying (which is wrong) seemingly blinded by your never ending quest to demonstrate to the world you have knowledge of these matters (big deal) you'll be able to debate things on a level appropriate rather than forcing a debate to turn into some kind of literal meaning of who said what which the debates about the old board always end up as.

 

I think i've been quite restrained. Dont get too huffy about it.

 

I've responded in detail to the points you've made, dont try and turn this into something it isnt.

 

Have you fuck

 

Me huffy? I'm not the one saying I give up and calling people retards. It isn't my fault you've jumped on a few comments of mine, totally tried to twist them into something else and now you have the audacity to say you've responded to all my points. No you haven't, you just keep repeating yourself and to be honest you're boring the tits off me. I made an innocent post trying to work out for myself a few scenarios and reasons for KK walking first time and you jumped on one tiny comment of mine questioning whether being a PLC has helped the club trying to force your knowledge into all things related to such issues like how Nobby used to hint he was a reporter or worked in London all the time.

[NE5]

 

 

I suppose the system that deliver the mighty Ramos is foolproof?

 

The system did something ours hasn't done since 1969, it delivered a trophy.

 

 

Ramos is still a clueless bufoon.

 

You're basing your opinion of his managerial skills entirely on the seven or so games played so far this season then I take it?

 

Where you take it is not my concern.

 

That a yes then?

 

 

No.

 

I said he'd fail in the Ramos thread as I got wind of the fact that they were going to sell their best 2 strikers from under his nose and replace them with shit. A manager who won't stand upto that or pays lip service to a system that has effectively destroyed Spurs hopes for a good season is a bufoon or has no self respect.

 

That's the difference between him and Keegan I guess.

 

That and winning half a dozen trophies.

 

and to think that I'm told I ruin threads.........

 

You said you were happy with Allardyce, when you could have told us about Ramos BTW

 

 

 

What are you on about? He was simply adding to a discussion me and Parky had going on.

 

selective clipping alert

 

not to mention lacking a wider grasp of mandy's usual non contribution.

 

 

 

Parky said Ramos is clueless. Ozzie countered that by saying that he's actually won some silverware in his time.

 

That was indeed the point of my thread-ruining post -- two consecutive UEFA cups is not the work of a complete buffoon. And he's already won more at Spurs than any Toon manager since Joe Harvey.

 

Gone by Chrissy mas?  Bufoon. FACT.

 

In all honesty who hasn't won trophies in Spain? 

 

Aye, and there are any number of clueless buffoons who've won two consecutive UEFA Cups.

 

so what do you think of someone who won 4 titles with 2 different clubs, and 3 manager of the year awards ?

 

 

[Guest Howaythetoon]

Simple example for you. I earn money from 4 seperate sources. It all goes into one bank account. I then go on holiday, paid out of the bank account. which source did it come from?

 

As no-one can say which pound earned from which source went on which expenditure, its irrelevant to the basic point; the floatation generated extra money to fund the club's expansion plans and that fact does not justify Keegan walking.

 

The Halls and Shepherd spent money on the floatation as they bought shares. They made money from this in 2007 not at the time.

 

1 - I never said the floatation didn't generate extra funds for the expansion of the club (I did question where it went, and not to the Halls and Shepherd's as you think I did, and what good it has all done)

 

2 - I never used that to justify KK's resignation so I don't know where you're going with that.

 

3 - The Halls and Shepherds sold some of their share of their private firm when the club floated meaning they made money from the club going public. FS used some of his money to buy more shares in the club to ramp up his overall stake resulting in him walking away with more money should he cash in on them which he did. Again they profited from the club going PLC which has been my point all along. What exact dates they profited is just you being fucking pedantic and arsey, who cares, like you said with the float money, it still went to them as the float money went into the coffers.

[ChezGiven]

Oh and this I give up/retard crap doesn't work with me Chez. If you actually stuck to reading what people are saying or rather understanding what they are saying rather than trying to impose your own version of what people are saying (which is wrong) seemingly blinded by your never ending quest to demonstrate to the world you have knowledge of these matters (big deal) you'll be able to debate things on a level appropriate rather than forcing a debate to turn into some kind of literal meaning of who said what which the debates about the old board always end up as.

 

I think i've been quite restrained. Dont get too huffy about it.

 

I've responded in detail to the points you've made, dont try and turn this into something it isnt.

 

Have you fuck

 

Me huffy? I'm not the one saying I give up and calling people retards. It isn't my fault you've jumped on a few comments of mine, totally tried to twist them into something else and now you have the audacity to say you've responded to all my points. No you haven't, you just keep repeating yourself and to be honest you're boring the tits off me. I made an innocent post trying to work out for myself a few scenarios and reasons for KK walking first time and you jumped on one tiny comment of mine questioning whether being a PLC has helped the club trying to force your knowledge into all things related to such issues like how Nobby used to hint he was a reporter or worked in London all the time.

 

Thats the thrid time you've tried to make that point about me 'forcing my knowledge' and each time it makes you look stupid as i've not repeated the technical point at the beginning of this discussion. Your desperation to come out of this not looking stupid is understandable though.

 

I'm debating whether Keegan was right to walk becuase the club became a PLC, you think yes, i think no. Thats a much more substantive debate than the one you allude to above.

 

Which points have i not responded to? Let me know and i'll happily do it.

[OzzieMandias]

 

 

I suppose the system that deliver the mighty Ramos is foolproof?

 

The system did something ours hasn't done since 1969, it delivered a trophy.

 

 

Ramos is still a clueless bufoon.

 

You're basing your opinion of his managerial skills entirely on the seven or so games played so far this season then I take it?

 

Where you take it is not my concern.

 

That a yes then?

 

 

No.

 

I said he'd fail in the Ramos thread as I got wind of the fact that they were going to sell their best 2 strikers from under his nose and replace them with shit. A manager who won't stand upto that or pays lip service to a system that has effectively destroyed Spurs hopes for a good season is a bufoon or has no self respect.

 

That's the difference between him and Keegan I guess.

 

That and winning half a dozen trophies.

 

and to think that I'm told I ruin threads.........

 

You said you were happy with Allardyce, when you could have told us about Ramos BTW

 

 

 

What are you on about? He was simply adding to a discussion me and Parky had going on.

 

selective clipping alert

 

not to mention lacking a wider grasp of mandy's usual non contribution.

 

 

 

Parky said Ramos is clueless. Ozzie countered that by saying that he's actually won some silverware in his time.

 

That was indeed the point of my thread-ruining post -- two consecutive UEFA cups is not the work of a complete buffoon. And he's already won more at Spurs than any Toon manager since Joe Harvey.

 

Gone by Chrissy mas?  Bufoon. FACT.

 

In all honesty who hasn't won trophies in Spain? 

 

Aye, and there are any number of clueless buffoons who've won two consecutive UEFA Cups.

 

so what do you think of someone who won 4 titles with 2 different clubs, and 3 manager of the year awards ?

 

 

 

Lots of clueless buffoons about.

[Stu]

 

so what do you think of someone who won 4 titles with 2 different clubs, and 3 manager of the year awards ?

 

 

Not a lot if any of those occured north of the border.

[Parky]

 

 

I suppose the system that deliver the mighty Ramos is foolproof?

 

The system did something ours hasn't done since 1969, it delivered a trophy.

 

 

Ramos is still a clueless bufoon.

 

You're basing your opinion of his managerial skills entirely on the seven or so games played so far this season then I take it?

 

Where you take it is not my concern.

 

That a yes then?

 

 

No.

 

I said he'd fail in the Ramos thread as I got wind of the fact that they were going to sell their best 2 strikers from under his nose and replace them with shit. A manager who won't stand upto that or pays lip service to a system that has effectively destroyed Spurs hopes for a good season is a bufoon or has no self respect.

 

That's the difference between him and Keegan I guess.

 

That and winning half a dozen trophies.

 

and to think that I'm told I ruin threads.........

 

You said you were happy with Allardyce, when you could have told us about Ramos BTW

 

 

 

What are you on about? He was simply adding to a discussion me and Parky had going on.

 

selective clipping alert

 

not to mention lacking a wider grasp of mandy's usual non contribution.

 

 

 

Parky said Ramos is clueless. Ozzie countered that by saying that he's actually won some silverware in his time.

 

That was indeed the point of my thread-ruining post -- two consecutive UEFA cups is not the work of a complete buffoon. And he's already won more at Spurs than any Toon manager since Joe Harvey.

 

Gone by Chrissy mas?  Bufoon. FACT.

 

In all honesty who hasn't won trophies in Spain? 

 

Aye, and there are any number of clueless buffoons who've won two consecutive UEFA Cups.

 

so what do you think of someone who won 4 titles with 2 different clubs, and 3 manager of the year awards ?

 

 

 

Lots of clueless buffoons about.

 

Case closed.

[NE5]

 

 

I suppose the system that deliver the mighty Ramos is foolproof?

 

The system did something ours hasn't done since 1969, it delivered a trophy.

 

 

Ramos is still a clueless bufoon.

 

You're basing your opinion of his managerial skills entirely on the seven or so games played so far this season then I take it?

 

Where you take it is not my concern.

 

That a yes then?

 

 

No.

 

I said he'd fail in the Ramos thread as I got wind of the fact that they were going to sell their best 2 strikers from under his nose and replace them with shit. A manager who won't stand upto that or pays lip service to a system that has effectively destroyed Spurs hopes for a good season is a bufoon or has no self respect.

 

That's the difference between him and Keegan I guess.

 

That and winning half a dozen trophies.

 

and to think that I'm told I ruin threads.........

 

You said you were happy with Allardyce, when you could have told us about Ramos BTW

 

 

 

What are you on about? He was simply adding to a discussion me and Parky had going on.

 

selective clipping alert

 

not to mention lacking a wider grasp of mandy's usual non contribution.

 

 

 

Parky said Ramos is clueless. Ozzie countered that by saying that he's actually won some silverware in his time.

 

That was indeed the point of my thread-ruining post -- two consecutive UEFA cups is not the work of a complete buffoon. And he's already won more at Spurs than any Toon manager since Joe Harvey.

 

Gone by Chrissy mas?  Bufoon. FACT.

 

In all honesty who hasn't won trophies in Spain? 

 

Aye, and there are any number of clueless buffoons who've won two consecutive UEFA Cups.

 

so what do you think of someone who won 4 titles with 2 different clubs, and 3 manager of the year awards ?

 

 

 

Lots of clueless buffoons about.

 

Case closed.

 

indeed it is.

 

 

[OzzieMandias]

 

 

I suppose the system that deliver the mighty Ramos is foolproof?

 

The system did something ours hasn't done since 1969, it delivered a trophy.

 

 

Ramos is still a clueless bufoon.

 

You're basing your opinion of his managerial skills entirely on the seven or so games played so far this season then I take it?

 

Where you take it is not my concern.

 

That a yes then?

 

 

No.

 

I said he'd fail in the Ramos thread as I got wind of the fact that they were going to sell their best 2 strikers from under his nose and replace them with shit. A manager who won't stand upto that or pays lip service to a system that has effectively destroyed Spurs hopes for a good season is a bufoon or has no self respect.

 

That's the difference between him and Keegan I guess.

 

That and winning half a dozen trophies.

 

and to think that I'm told I ruin threads.........

 

You said you were happy with Allardyce, when you could have told us about Ramos BTW

 

 

 

What are you on about? He was simply adding to a discussion me and Parky had going on.

 

selective clipping alert

 

not to mention lacking a wider grasp of mandy's usual non contribution.

 

 

 

Parky said Ramos is clueless. Ozzie countered that by saying that he's actually won some silverware in his time.

 

That was indeed the point of my thread-ruining post -- two consecutive UEFA cups is not the work of a complete buffoon. And he's already won more at Spurs than any Toon manager since Joe Harvey.

 

Gone by Chrissy mas?  Bufoon. FACT.

 

In all honesty who hasn't won trophies in Spain? 

 

Aye, and there are any number of clueless buffoons who've won two consecutive UEFA Cups.

 

so what do you think of someone who won 4 titles with 2 different clubs, and 3 manager of the year awards ?

 

 

 

Lots of clueless buffoons about.

 

Case closed.

 

We should be so lucky.

[NE5]

 

so what do you think of someone who won 4 titles with 2 different clubs, and 3 manager of the year awards ?

 

 

Not a lot if any of those occured north of the border.

 

they didn't, nor in Spain

 

 

[Guest Howaythetoon]

Thats the thrid time you've tried to make that point about me 'forcing my knowledge' and each time it makes you look stupid as i've not repeated the technical point at the beginning of this discussion. Your desperation to come out of this not looking stupid is understandable though.

 

That's how it reads. As for me, I don't care about looking stupid over a few meaningless comments. What I take exception to however is people twisting my words and creating their own version of what I said and then taking me to task on that.

 

Simple example for you:

 

I said the Halls and Shepherd profited from the club going to a PLC. You twist that into me saying they profited from the float money.

 

I said the club going to a PLC played a role in KK's resignation first time around. You twist that into me saying I'm justifying his decision based on MY opinion that in hindsight the PLC didn't really change the clubs fortunes.

 

You then twist that and start jumping all over that comment lecturing me on the benefits of going PLC for some reason.

 

I said the club funded its rise to promotion and title challenges via the money it was bringing in via Sky, sponsorship, ST sales and so on and so on and you then bang on and on about the float paying for all that when really, it didn't. I use a fact of 34m in 2 years or whatever as money to pay for our rise and you say no no no, that's wrong. That's a condition of our success not the source of it you say but you are trying to say money generated years later via a float helped pay for it, howay Chez it doesn't add up and I'm the one getting stick for daring to say revenues generated by the club as a private company helped pay for our success as a private company?

 

I'm debating whether Keegan was right to walk becuase the club became a PLC, you think yes, i think no. Thats a much more substantive debate than the one you allude to above.

 

No I don't think yes. I think he had a right to walk if he strongly believed which he did he couldn't work under such a system or believed in it enough, is what I'm saying. In hindsight his misgivings of the club going PLC at the time, were right looking back because going PLC didn't help the club in the ways should have or could have. Now I don't put that all at the door of the PLC because bad decisions by people were mainly responsible for that but then I thought I wouldn't have to expand on my pretty meaningless comments about how I felt the PLC didn't profit the club, until you jumped on it and started bleating on about equity and debt and this and that when all I meant was in terms of end result out there on the pitch.

 

Which points have i not responded to? Let me know and i'll happily do it.

 

What's the point.

 

Anyway to end this silly debate.

 

IMO KK was right to walk if he felt he couldn't work with the PLC or if he didn't really believe in it.

 

IMO some of KK's misgivings about the PLC were right now looking bac.

 

IMO the club going to PLC didn't really help the club looking back. The only people that profited from it were the Halls and Shepherds but the club itself didn't. The stadium expansion wasn't funded by money generated by the float but by fans' pockets spread over a few years. The team wasn't funded by the float but by TV, ST, sponsorship and European jaunts money, and of course rebalancing the books by selling a few.  All of which could have and was being achieved as a private company, only better.

 

This has been my view all along and I stand by them.