themanupstairs Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 If Ashley's done so well - made the club so financially stable, sorted out this and that "behind the scenes", put a great management team in place, etc - why would the club not get sold? Shortage of multi-billionaires eager to play Fairy Godmother and splash obscene amounts of money, fractious and quite possibly ungrateful fanbase, global financial meltdown etc etc. Got to face it, we have made ourselves very unattractive with our latest protests etc. In fact, the worst part is that we have made ourselves investable only by exactly the kind of people that we don't want - someone who's only in it for the money. Bollocks has a week of protests which has since dwindled out changed anything. Any potential owner who doesn't realise they're going to get a bit of stick when they don't spend any money on the team after collecting unprecedented amounts of TV money, asking for 3 years up front season ticket revenue, and then having a respected manager walk out saying he's not happy with things should be nowhere near a football club in the first place. What about the 7 interested parties? They all knew about the protests before they expressed an interest. If it's such a great deal now Mike's fixed everything wrong with the club, they'll be fighting over themselves to get their hands on it. So what are you accusing him of today? Wanting to sell the club or not wanting to sell the club? check the weather outside. might give you a clue Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 If Ashley's done so well - made the club so financially stable, sorted out this and that "behind the scenes", put a great management team in place, etc - why would the club not get sold? Shortage of multi-billionaires eager to play Fairy Godmother and splash obscene amounts of money, fractious and quite possibly ungrateful fanbase, global financial meltdown etc etc. Got to face it, we have made ourselves very unattractive with our latest protests etc. In fact, the worst part is that we have made ourselves investable only by exactly the kind of people that we don't want - someone who's only in it for the money. Bollocks has a week of protests which has since dwindled out changed anything. Any potential owner who doesn't realise they're going to get a bit of stick when they don't spend any money on the team after collecting unprecedented amounts of TV money, asking for 3 years up front season ticket revenue, and then having a respected manager walk out saying he's not happy with things should be nowhere near a football club in the first place. What about the 7 interested parties? They all knew about the protests before they expressed an interest. If it's such a great deal now Mike's fixed everything wrong with the club, they'll be fighting over themselves to get their hands on it. So what are you accusing him of today? Wanting to sell the club or not wanting to sell the club? check the weather outside. might give you a clue When have I ever said I don't think he wants to sell the club? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skirge Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 If Ashley's done so well - made the club so financially stable, sorted out this and that "behind the scenes", put a great management team in place, etc - why would the club not get sold? Shortage of multi-billionaires eager to play Fairy Godmother and splash obscene amounts of money, fractious and quite possibly ungrateful fanbase, global financial meltdown etc etc. Got to face it, we have made ourselves very unattractive with our latest protests etc. In fact, the worst part is that we have made ourselves investable only by exactly the kind of people that we don't want - someone who's only in it for the money. Bollocks has a week of protests which has since dwindled out changed anything. Any potential owner who doesn't realise they're going to get a bit of stick when they don't spend any money on the team after collecting unprecedented amounts of TV money, asking for 3 years up front season ticket revenue, and then having a respected manager walk out saying he's not happy with things should be nowhere near a football club in the first place. What about the 7 interested parties? They all knew about the protests before they expressed an interest. If it's such a great deal now Mike's fixed everything wrong with the club, they'll be fighting over themselves to get their hands on it. So what are you accusing him of today? Wanting to sell the club or not wanting to sell the club? check the weather outside. might give you a clue When have I ever said I don't think he wants to sell the club? Erm I have said in the past that I doubted he wanted to really sell and seemed to be being very awkward with possible buyers. He may just be waiting for the dust to settle unless an offer he cannot refuse is made and it would appear that has not happended yet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobby Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 If he did the following i'd consider it: a) Made a full public apopgy admitting he got it wrong b) Bring back Chris Mort c) Sacked Wise d) brought in a top drawer manager e) backed the manager in the market with a decent amount of funds. Doesn't have to be huge, just Villa-esque. NEEDS TO BE DONE Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Anyone who wants Shepherd back because they think the problem is the owner hasn't been putting enough of his own money into the club ought to be seeking psychiatric help. What would "having Shepherd back" mean, anyway. If he did manage to raise the money to buy the club, it would have to be some kind of leveraged buyout as he's about £200 million short of the minimum asking price. He wouldn't exactly be loaded down with transfer money to chuck around, and the club would be in enormous debt even before he'd put the "Shepherd Offshore" sign back up on his private box. I'd say that scenario was a flat impossibility in the current economic climate, anyway. And if he was still here, we'd have Fat Sam still as manager, and no money to buy players. Or else he'd have sacked Sam and appointed, well... after Souness, Roeder and Allardyce, God knows who. I don't think it would be the worst idea in the world if Ashley was stuck with the club, if Shepherd replaced Llambias as Chairman and made the footballing decisions (ie, getting rid of the "regime" and bringing in a manager). I'd keep Fred away from footballing decisions, frankly, given his failure rate in managerial appointments. but you agreed with him on at least 3 of them , didn't you ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Sorry, I've run out of troll food. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Sorry, I've run out of troll food. the usual silence/lack of response speaks as loudly as always - and not just you either Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Venkman Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Sorry, I've run out of troll food. the usual silence/lack of response speaks as loudly as always - and not just you either Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 There needs to an emoticon for shaking your head sadly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Heneage Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 I hope the twats that "Protested" realise how stupid thyeve made the club look. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 There needs to an emoticon for shaking your head sadly. you said they made shit choices of manager, but we achieved the highest league positions for 50 years and you agreed with at least 3 of those managers ? Why don't you reply ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Why are you marshalling your straw men for this off-topic tripe? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 doesn't need to bring back Mort. Just someone who understands football and business Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Why are you marshalling your straw men for this off-topic tripe? you said this in post number 97 in this thread. I'd keep Fred away from footballing decisions, frankly, given his failure rate in managerial appointments. So I'm responding. Why don't you reply ? You're saying that the comment is off topic, so if somebody has taken it off topic, its you that has taken it off topic. I think a reply is in keeping with your comment that you made without any prompting, you have made it part of the topic, so its all yours. hum, hum, hum........ waiting for Ozzie to admit that he's agreed with at least 3 of the appointments he slates. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowen Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 As a few people have said, if he rips out the current system, get in someone who really knows football to run things and gets in a manager who has full control and is backed (actually backed with money, not just promises) I'd give him a second crack of the whip. It's a pretty big 'if' though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen927 Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 The structure would need to be changed, or if not then bring a manager in who can work within that structure. A must is more money being made available for transfers. I think a lot of fans would find it hard to trust him again, but maybe when the dust has settled and we have a manager in place and a couple of good buys and the football is good, then maybe he can have a second chance. This is all assuming that he chooses to give it another go btw. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 I hope the twats that "Protested" realise how stupid thyeve made the club look. The club was already made to look stupid by making the manager's position untenable when there was no need to do so. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp40 Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 I hope the twats that "Protested" realise how stupid thyeve made the club look. I hope the twats that 'appointed wise' realise how stupid thyeve made the club look. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karjala Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Not gonna happen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredbob Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 I hope the twats that "Protested" realise how stupid thyeve made the club look. The club was already made to look stupid by making the manager's position untenable when there was no need to do so. The people who appointed the manager were made to look stupid by the manager inability to stick to a criterai set by the club...anyone can play this game. The bottom line is that if he scrapped th structure and backed the manager then we'd be in the exact same situation as we would should another owner come in, the only difference being is that we wont waste so much time unsettling the squad and manager with these drawn out talks.So it'd make sense to accpet him and let him get on with it if it were the case. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 I hope the twats that "Protested" realise how stupid thyeve made the club look. The club was already made to look stupid by making the manager's position untenable when there was no need to do so. The people who appointed the manager were made to look stupid by the manager inability to stick to a criterai set by the club...anyone can play this game. The bottom line is that if he scrapped th structure and backed the manager then we'd be in the exact same situation as we would should another owner come in, the only difference being is that we wont waste so much time unsettling the squad and manager with these drawn out talks.So it'd make sense to accpet him and let him get on with it if it were the case. A criteria that was set by the club? Was this the same criteria whereby things appeared to change as we went along. "It is a fact that Kevin Keegan, on appointment on 16th January 2008, agreed to report to a Director of Football and the the Board. It is a fact that Kevin Keegan had specific duties in that he was responsible for the training, coaching, selection and motivation of the team. It is a fact that Kevin Keegan agreed only to deal with the media in relation to Club matters relatiing to the Team and not to communicate with the media in relation to the acquisition and disposal of players" NUFC official statement - September 6, 2008 "I'm here to help Kevin, bringing young players through and also recommend certain players to him. He'll say yes and no, he has the final word, no-one else. Everything that happens will be run past him. I'm not going to bring players in behind his back - I'm not into that." Dennis Wise, via BBC Sport website - February 1, 2008 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sicko2ndbest Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 I think an ideal scenario, if the club is not sold, is for Ashley to sell a stake, 30/40%, preferably to someone who can help fork out with transfers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest optimistic nit Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 I hope the twats that "Protested" realise how stupid thyeve made the club look. The club was already made to look stupid by making the manager's position untenable when there was no need to do so. The people who appointed the manager were made to look stupid by the manager inability to stick to a criterai set by the club...anyone can play this game. The bottom line is that if he scrapped th structure and backed the manager then we'd be in the exact same situation as we would should another owner come in, the only difference being is that we wont waste so much time unsettling the squad and manager with these drawn out talks.So it'd make sense to accpet him and let him get on with it if it were the case. A criteria that was set by the club? Was this the same criteria whereby things appeared to change as we went along. "It is a fact that Kevin Keegan, on appointment on 16th January 2008, agreed to report to a Director of Football and the the Board. It is a fact that Kevin Keegan had specific duties in that he was responsible for the training, coaching, selection and motivation of the team. It is a fact that Kevin Keegan agreed only to deal with the media in relation to Club matters relatiing to the Team and not to communicate with the media in relation to the acquisition and disposal of players" NUFC official statement - September 6, 2008 "I'm here to help Kevin, bringing young players through and also recommend certain players to him. He'll say yes and no, he has the final word, no-one else. Everything that happens will be run past him. I'm not going to bring players in behind his back - I'm not into that." Dennis Wise, via BBC Sport website - February 1, 2008 none of that is ashley though. it seems like wise and llamblas to me, who i think should definately go no matter what. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredbob Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 I hope the twats that "Protested" realise how stupid thyeve made the club look. The club was already made to look stupid by making the manager's position untenable when there was no need to do so. The people who appointed the manager were made to look stupid by the manager inability to stick to a criterai set by the club...anyone can play this game. The bottom line is that if he scrapped th structure and backed the manager then we'd be in the exact same situation as we would should another owner come in, the only difference being is that we wont waste so much time unsettling the squad and manager with these drawn out talks.So it'd make sense to accpet him and let him get on with it if it were the case. A criteria that was set by the club? Was this the same criteria whereby things appeared to change as we went along. "It is a fact that Kevin Keegan, on appointment on 16th January 2008, agreed to report to a Director of Football and the the Board. It is a fact that Kevin Keegan had specific duties in that he was responsible for the training, coaching, selection and motivation of the team. It is a fact that Kevin Keegan agreed only to deal with the media in relation to Club matters relatiing to the Team and not to communicate with the media in relation to the acquisition and disposal of players" NUFC official statement - September 6, 2008 "I'm here to help Kevin, bringing young players through and also recommend certain players to him. He'll say yes and no, he has the final word, no-one else. Everything that happens will be run past him. I'm not going to bring players in behind his back - I'm not into that." Dennis Wise, via BBC Sport website - February 1, 2008 Ok, i was more talking about the transfer policy. However, wasnt Keegan lying as well then? And also the bit ive bolded only became an issue on the last day of the window, what forced him to do that? I still dont say how reporting to the Director of Football contradicts the idea that Keegan had full say on trasfers? Is it impossible to have full say on transfer yet have to report to a Director of Football who was also a member of the board? Massive red herring that is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 A massive red herring, give over man. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now