Cockney Mafia Out! Banner

[Guest fading star]

So basically what you're after is someone who's less reckless with their money than Mike Ashley is?

 

How does that square with wanting to compete with the big boys?

Someone who undertook due diligence would be a good start, and personally I’d quite like them to wear a suit and sit in the directors box as well. All that “Look at me down this pint, I’m one of the lads me like” stuff made was a sure sign Ashley would be trouble.

Yeah we'd be much better off with someone that slagged off the locals, mocked the gullible fans and took the piss out of our star player.

We we’re better off with someone that slagged off the locals, mocked the gullible fans and took the piss out of our star player. Or are you suggesting we’ll do better than regularly qualifying for European with Mr Ashley at the helm.

 

My point was, as indi has also suggested, that wearing a suit or downing a pint is utterly meaningless when it comes to whether someone can do the job or not.

 

Or if you really think it is that important, does that mean you will support Ashley if he sticks a shirt and tie on for you?

No it’s not. It was arrogant, tacky and displayed a complete disregard for convention. Here’s Mike. He can do what he likes.

 

Getting photographed in a Newcastle shirt with his belly out sums it up. He looked more like a daft lad than a safe pair of hands, a perception that was reinforced by the failure to due diligence, the reappointing KK, the making Dennis Wise Dof and creating a managerial structure that led to the aforementioned KK departing the day after the transfer window shut, the protests at the Hulll game, the 1600 word post Hull game rant, the it is fact rant and, of course, the fairly useless team managed by the only man desperate enough to take on the job nobody wanted.

 

Judgement counts, and thus far Ashley’s has been poor. If we’re stuck with him so be it, but until he puts some effort into making up the unrest will continue. He should have taken up NUSCs offer for a chat. Regardless of what you think about NUSC it would have been seen as a genuine attempt at trying to sort things out.  That he didn’t even reply to their letter says everything about his vision of moving forward together.

 

[Guest fading star]

So basically what you're after is someone who's less reckless with their money than Mike Ashley is?

 

How does that square with wanting to compete with the big boys?

Someone who undertook due diligence would be a good start, and personally I’d quite like them to wear a suit and sit in the directors box as well. All that “Look at me down this pint, I’m one of the lads me like” stuff made was a sure sign Ashley would be trouble.

Yeah we'd be much better off with someone that slagged off the locals, mocked the gullible fans and took the piss out of our star player.

We we’re better off with someone that slagged off the locals, mocked the gullible fans and took the piss out of our star player. Or are you suggesting we’ll do better than regularly qualifying for European with Mr Ashley at the helm.

 

My point was, as indi has also suggested, that wearing a suit or downing a pint is utterly meaningless when it comes to whether someone can do the job or not.

 

Or if you really think it is that important, does that mean you will support Ashley if he sticks a shirt and tie on for you?

 

Agree. Wasn't a single person slagging off Ashley about all the "one of the lads" stuff before the s*** hit the fan.

 

I recall most of us quite enjoyed it at the time.

And how do you feel about it now?

[Syrette]

So basically what you're after is someone who's less reckless with their money than Mike Ashley is?

 

How does that square with wanting to compete with the big boys?

Someone who undertook due diligence would be a good start, and personally I’d quite like them to wear a suit and sit in the directors box as well. All that “Look at me down this pint, I’m one of the lads me like” stuff made was a sure sign Ashley would be trouble.

Yeah we'd be much better off with someone that slagged off the locals, mocked the gullible fans and took the piss out of our star player.

We we’re better off with someone that slagged off the locals, mocked the gullible fans and took the piss out of our star player. Or are you suggesting we’ll do better than regularly qualifying for European with Mr Ashley at the helm.

 

My point was, as indi has also suggested, that wearing a suit or downing a pint is utterly meaningless when it comes to whether someone can do the job or not.

 

Or if you really think it is that important, does that mean you will support Ashley if he sticks a shirt and tie on for you?

 

Agree. Wasn't a single person slagging off Ashley about all the "one of the lads" stuff before the s*** hit the fan.

 

I recall most of us quite enjoyed it at the time.

And how do you feel about it now?

 

It doesn't mean a thing. I'm sure it was genuine and I don't really care one way or the other about it.

 

I can't understand why some people get upset about such trivial things. It's pretty pathetic. So what if he didn't follow convention?

[NE5]

It remains fucking idiotic.

 

They've tried to sell the club; they couldn't. What good does insisting they should be "out" achieve?

 

It might stop this idea that he's "welcome back" for starters.

 

 

 

So where do we all go from here then?

 

Not as a deliberate campaign but ST renewals will show him I think.

 

Think you missed my point.

 

What I'm asking is if he can't go and he isn't welcome back then what happens now?

 

he will either accept a reduced price or be forced to accept a reduced price due to relegation, because I can't see him having a change of heart for the simple reason seriously competing with the big boys again was never on his agenda to start with.

 

IMO anyway.

 

 

 

And if no-one makes an offer?

 

Why would someone whose aim was to compete with the big boys not give him what he's asking for the club?

 

you were asking what would happen next ?

 

Another possibility is that we will spend years, or more years, competing at the level of the Birminghams, Stokes, Boltons etc of the football world. Eventually going down, and spend at least a few years trying to get back up ?

 

Another alternative is we might be the only solvent club in the premiership, managing to stave off relegation for years and settling for staying in the premiership and solvency while other clubs showing ambition are successful on the pitch ?

 

If you don't think that is what might happen next, what alternative to the above possibilities do you think could happen next ?

 

When I say "compete with the big boys", you do understand that we are the 3rd biggest supported club in the country, with a unique one city one club fanbase, and really ought to be competing higher than these smaller clubs ie like we did between 1992 and 2007 ?

 

 

 

What I started off asking was "if he can't go and he isn't welcome back then what happens now?", meaning if no-one else buys the club (for whatever reason) and the fans won't accept him as the owner, where does that leave NUFC as a club? I'd suggest that the answer is not in a good place. If the situation is that he can't leave, then the only thing that can change is for the fans to accept that as the reality and try to encourage him to do the best for the club that they can get him to. The club is in turmoil at the moment how long does that go on before people put away their pride/anger/whatever and start doing something about it? What good does it do for the fans to do all they can to discourage the owner from wanting anything to do with the club? Given the current global financial situation it's looking increasingly unlikely that someone's going to come along and buy the club, so whether we like it or not, it looks like the club is going to continue being owned by Mike Ashley in the short to medium term at least. Are people going to continue protesting for months, years, decades? If they are, how does that help us win games, attract new players, etc? Because it's hardly going to encourage him to invest in the club, is it.

 

If we are going to get  bought out by someone else, then again, how does continuing protests actually help that? Everyone knows the fans aren't happy now, everyone knows Ashley wants out, all that carrying on the protests does is make that less likely, rather than more likely. Whether it's true or not, the media portray us as having unrealistic expectations and most of the rest of the country has accepted that as the truth. So the only people who are likely to want to buy the club are people like those that have taken over Citeh (ie have unlimited funds) everyone else is going to see NUFC as a hiding to nothing. The more the protests go on the more this opinion will solidify in people's minds and the harder it'll become for the club to be sold, regardless of the global conditions.

 

I have to say I'm surprised to see you using an "anyone but Shepherd Ashley" argument, do you really think that the kind of people who would have to wait for Ashley to significantly lower his asking price are the kind of people who could afford to be "ambitious"? I don't.

 

We're caught in a catch-22 situation there's no-one about that is going to come in and spend mega-money and the perception is that the fans won't accept someone coming in and not spending big. Something has to change, it doesn't look like the first one's going to, so that leaves the second and it's one of the few things in modern football that the fans might actually be able to have some impact upon, if they want to. That seems to be a big if at the moment though.

 

 

Indi's on a roll.

 

So. Do you think Ashley's "plan" will match the european qualifications and league positions of the Halls and Shepherd, or not ?

 

Simple question.

 

Grunt once for yes, twice for no.

 

 

[NE5]

It remains fucking idiotic.

 

They've tried to sell the club; they couldn't. What good does insisting they should be "out" achieve?

 

It might stop this idea that he's "welcome back" for starters.

 

 

 

So where do we all go from here then?

 

Not as a deliberate campaign but ST renewals will show him I think.

 

Think you missed my point.

 

What I'm asking is if he can't go and he isn't welcome back then what happens now?

 

he will either accept a reduced price or be forced to accept a reduced price due to relegation, because I can't see him having a change of heart for the simple reason seriously competing with the big boys again was never on his agenda to start with.

 

IMO anyway.

 

 

 

And if no-one makes an offer?

 

Why would someone whose aim was to compete with the big boys not give him what he's asking for the club?

 

you were asking what would happen next ?

 

Another possibility is that we will spend years, or more years, competing at the level of the Birminghams, Stokes, Boltons etc of the football world. Eventually going down, and spend at least a few years trying to get back up ?

 

Another alternative is we might be the only solvent club in the premiership, managing to stave off relegation for years and settling for staying in the premiership and solvency while other clubs showing ambition are successful on the pitch ?

 

If you don't think that is what might happen next, what alternative to the above possibilities do you think could happen next ?

 

When I say "compete with the big boys", you do understand that we are the 3rd biggest supported club in the country, with a unique one city one club fanbase, and really ought to be competing higher than these smaller clubs ie like we did between 1992 and 2007 ?

 

 

 

What I started off asking was "if he can't go and he isn't welcome back then what happens now?", meaning if no-one else buys the club (for whatever reason) and the fans won't accept him as the owner, where does that leave NUFC as a club? I'd suggest that the answer is not in a good place. If the situation is that he can't leave, then the only thing that can change is for the fans to accept that as the reality and try to encourage him to do the best for the club that they can get him to. The club is in turmoil at the moment how long does that go on before people put away their pride/anger/whatever and start doing something about it? What good does it do for the fans to do all they can to discourage the owner from wanting anything to do with the club? Given the current global financial situation it's looking increasingly unlikely that someone's going to come along and buy the club, so whether we like it or not, it looks like the club is going to continue being owned by Mike Ashley in the short to medium term at least. Are people going to continue protesting for months, years, decades? If they are, how does that help us win games, attract new players, etc? Because it's hardly going to encourage him to invest in the club, is it.

 

If we are going to get  bought out by someone else, then again, how does continuing protests actually help that? Everyone knows the fans aren't happy now, everyone knows Ashley wants out, all that carrying on the protests does is make that less likely, rather than more likely. Whether it's true or not, the media portray us as having unrealistic expectations and most of the rest of the country has accepted that as the truth. So the only people who are likely to want to buy the club are people like those that have taken over Citeh (ie have unlimited funds) everyone else is going to see NUFC as a hiding to nothing. The more the protests go on the more this opinion will solidify in people's minds and the harder it'll become for the club to be sold, regardless of the global conditions.

 

I have to say I'm surprised to see you using an "anyone but Shepherd Ashley" argument, do you really think that the kind of people who would have to wait for Ashley to significantly lower his asking price are the kind of people who could afford to be "ambitious"? I don't.

 

We're caught in a catch-22 situation there's no-one about that is going to come in and spend mega-money and the perception is that the fans won't accept someone coming in and not spending big. Something has to change, it doesn't look like the first one's going to, so that leaves the second and it's one of the few things in modern football that the fans might actually be able to have some impact upon, if they want to. That seems to be a big if at the moment though.

 

You've made some fair comments there, I only responded to your original post by stating what the alternatives are.

 

Of course, there is an alternative whereby Ashley can accept that he has got it all wrong, we are in a mess, and tell us that he has made mistakes and show that me means what he says by taking the correct decisions. Which are what we all know.

 

I don't understand what people have against demonstrations. The alternative is to pretend they are happy ?

 

I think any half decent owner will understand the depth of feeling that exists about the current situation, and see it as a positive rather than a negative. If YOU were going to buy a football club, you would see the club having a huge passionate fanbase which are prepared to show their feelings and emotions in this way as a club I would far rather own than a club where supporters are in much smaller numbers and don't care so much.

 

Anyone who wants to buy the club will have an asking price in mind, thats the name of the game when you buy anything. They will also be aware that the world situation will possibly make the club a cheaper option to buy unless something changes pretty fast.

There is nothing wrong with that, and I do understand your point, but you are describing the seenario of someone buying the club and not negotiating the price sensibly ?

 

 

 

[NE5]

So basically what you're after is someone who's less reckless with their money than Mike Ashley is?

 

How does that square with wanting to compete with the big boys?

Someone who undertook due diligence would be a good start, and personally I’d quite like them to wear a suit and sit in the directors box as well. All that “Look at me down this pint, I’m one of the lads me like” stuff made was a sure sign Ashley would be trouble.

Yeah we'd be much better off with someone that slagged off the locals, mocked the gullible fans and took the piss out of our star player.

We we’re better off with someone that slagged off the locals, mocked the gullible fans and took the piss out of our star player. Or are you suggesting we’ll do better than regularly qualifying for European with Mr Ashley at the helm.

 

My point was, as indi has also suggested, that wearing a suit or downing a pint is utterly meaningless when it comes to whether someone can do the job or not.

 

Or if you really think it is that important, does that mean you will support Ashley if he sticks a shirt and tie on for you?

 

Agree. Wasn't a single person slagging off Ashley about all the "one of the lads" stuff before the shit hit the fan.

 

I recall most of us quite enjoyed it at the time.

 

oh yes there was.

 

And not just me. And lots of posters complained about it too ie you can't criticise our hero Ashley who got rid of the fat bastard, etc etc blah blah

 

 

[NJS]

So basically the man makes a statement about taking the club forward and then proceeds to piss off and sell the only half-decent players we have remaining and we're supposed to keep quiet, bend over and take it because we're afraid of what the alternatives are.

 

I want this poisonous piece of shit out of my club as soon as possible - I don't care whether that's because he feels unwelcome, nobody renews their STs or even relegation.

 

People keep saying his "long term" plan of stability is great - all I see is a team in terminal decline even now.

 

I'll ask a few questions in return to those asked - how could it get worse? what hope is there? when it gets to the 2nd and the squad is weaker will you then wake up?

 

 

[Syrette]

He hasn't sold anyone yet. "He" would only be selling them because the manager wants to bring in his own players and needs the funds to do so. Don't base your accusation on speculation.

 

What alternatives are there? Did you miss the last few months where they were actively searching for them?

[NJS]

He hasn't sold anyone yet. "He" would only be selling them because the manager wants to bring in his own players and needs the funds to do so. Don't base your accusation on speculation.

 

What alternatives are there? Did you miss the last few months where they were actively searching for them?

 

He's refusing once again to invest - probably not even the right word given the surplus from the summer.

 

He could have accepted the alleged £180m from the yanks - less of a loss than he's made on the markets in the last year.

 

 

[Syrette]

He hasn't sold anyone yet. "He" would only be selling them because the manager wants to bring in his own players and needs the funds to do so. Don't base your accusation on speculation.

 

What alternatives are there? Did you miss the last few months where they were actively searching for them?

 

He's refusing once again to invest - probably not even the right word given the surplus from the summer.

 

 

I'm sure he doesn't really want to be here and has major money problems of his own, so I can sort of understand his unwillingness to spend. Of course I am not happy about that.

[OzzieMandias]

I don't understand what people have against demonstrations.

 

And it shows. Try reading the post you're supposedly replying to.

[OzzieMandias]

So basically the man makes a statement about taking the club forward and then proceeds to piss off and sell the only half-decent players we have remaining and we're supposed to keep quiet, bend over and take it because we're afraid of what the alternatives are.

 

 

And waving idiotic "cockney mafia" banners like a bunch of mongs will solve everything, of course.

 

 

[bealios]

So basically the man makes a statement about taking the club forward and then proceeds to piss off and sell the only half-decent players we have remaining and we're supposed to keep quiet, bend over and take it because we're afraid of what the alternatives are.

 

 

How has Ashley pissed off the only half decent players we have left at the club?

 

Does anyone think Owen is leaving because of something Mike Ashley has said or done, or is it because he feels his career has gone backwards after signing for NUFC (including the two years under Shepherd)? Given may leave, but again that is a result of the 10 years of being generally shite. Its not as if Owen and Given (or N'Zogbia) were happy with life before Ashley turned up, and then all of a sudden they wanted out.

[ChezGiven]

No one has answered Indi's point with anything approaching sense. NE5 has addressed it but if he thinks the passion of our fans would attract the right investor then why hasnt this person materialised already?

 

If the person who buys the club is so frugal that he waits until the club is sold at a discount during the world's worst financial crisis in decades, how is this person then going to act in exactly the opposite fashion just after he's lumped on well over a hundred million pounds on an asset?

 

Also, i dont think anyone should sit and take the demise of the club without a stand, so its important that we at least maintain what we have. Our average position over the last 5 seasons is 11th. Today we currently sit in 11th. Yes we all want more than this but a reasonable expectation about where we should be is needed. As far as i can tell the only thing Ashley has done wrong (given the latitude i gave to the previous board regarding personal behaviour) is the Keegan issue. For those who bemoan the lack of investment by Ashley, its always interesting (and funny tbh) to point out to them their own opinions of where the club would have been if Keegan had stayed. "6th!" they shout "or higher", then fail to see the irony.

 

Theres no doubt in my mind that Ashley is far more careful with the finances than the previous board. You never know which way this may work for us in the future. Clubs like West Ham and Portsmouth are going to get worse financially and from a players perspective, Man City are going to get better, Chelsea may regress a bit, Everton too. If we survive the season this current frugality may not be such a bad thing after all especially if the recession dents the TV revenues as advertisers drive harder bargains and switch to alternative more cost-effective media.

[Dave]

Why is it always assumed that anyone unhappy with Ashley is demanding a Man City-style billionaire willing to lavish untold millions of their personal worth on the club?

[ChezGiven]

Why is it always assumed that anyone unhappy with Ashley is demanding a Man City-style billionaire willing to lavish untold millions of their personal worth on the club?

 

Firstly, unless it is someone who is willing to invest large chunks of a personal fortune, the probability of the next owner being better is about 0.5 i.e. its possible (like the last time) that they could be worse. Thats the most basic analysis though.

 

Secondly, if Ashley is doing such a bad job, then the imaginary investor who is willing to spend and invest more heavily than Ashley would have already materialised. They would have looked at the finances and realised that as Ashley is spending nothing and has all these huge revenues then he must be making an enormous profit. Everyone who thinks there is loads of money being made by the club obviously hasnt clicked their brain into gear. No one is buying.

 

Thirdly, if this imaginary investor is not prepared to pay the value of the asset (which can be determined by a model, not simply just by what someone is prepared to pay for it) then this is significant information to me which would suggest less investment and ambition than currently shown and possibly a debt financed growth strategy. Like the one thats just royally fucked up West Ham.

 

Never forget that this whole debate is centred around the financial crisis. If that settles down, then lets re-visit this.

[Dave]

I just find it difficult to believe that the wage bill is inflated to such a degree that every penny the club generates through matchdays, sponsorship, TV revenue and player sales is being eaten up.

 

Supposing that is the case though, many of the players apparently costing us the most for little or no return (I'm thinking Smith, Geremi, Gonzalez, Xisco, Cacapa and arguably Viduka and Barton) were brought in under this administration in the first place. So if Ashley is committed to cutting the wage bill/getting most value for money he's got a rather strange way of going about it.

 

I'm not sure anyone would argue the club is making 'enormous profit', but it is surely making more than the net spending implies. There always has to be an element of 'speculate to accumulate' or else there's no point being in football at all.

 

The lack of effective communication is key in all this for me; there are a multitude of mixed messages. If Ashley had said all along that there was naff all to spend because the club wasn't making any money whatsoever and that a number of years were required to get back on a sound footing then I for one would have had no issue with that. Sure I hoped Ashley would be able to spend when he arrived but I also recognised the financial mess we were in. Instead he got rid of Allardyce (used to working on a tight budget), brought in Keegan (assumed by most to desire heavy backing to work effectively) and told us all that if the manager wanted the right player the money was there. Why bid £20m or whatever for Modric? It doesn't stack up.

[ChezGiven]

Maybe the money is there but attracting the players we want and persuading the clubs to sell them to us is just as hard nowadays as its always been.

[UV]

Are you suggesting the club generates no money?

 

Im suggesting that the money the clubs generating is being eaten by wages. As we dont have a benefactor type owner, surely the most sensible thing is to reduce the wage levels to a sensible level, freeing up money and adding it to the supposed £20m ~Ashley was affording, as opposed to relying on the £20m Ashley was supposedley affording us and adding to that wage bill.

 

Financially spekaing, Spurs are really doing the business.

 

They have a low wage bill, yet they arent compromising the quality of the squad, they're also investing in players who dont lose there value too much, we're in a position where our wage bill is crippling our potential to spend becasue no matter how mch we're spending we're always adding to an already inflated wage bill which further spas resources.

 

Throwing money at the problem wont solve a thing becasue our starting point is so precarious. A great man once said, ambition first then balance the books later, well when is later?

 

The only high earners left at the club from before Ashley was the major shareholder are Given, Martins, Owen, Duff & Butt. Say that's a total of £350k/w or about £18m/year. That's the same as the increase in TV revenue we received in 07-08 (£18m). If we still have an overly large wage bill now, it's of Ashley's making. People can't keep blaming the old board forever.

 

I'd be surprised if Spurs haven't caught us up in wages tbh, although if their wages are structured more around win bonuses than basic pay they may be in for a cheap year.

[fredbob]

Are you suggesting the club generates no money?

 

Im suggesting that the money the clubs generating is being eaten by wages. As we dont have a benefactor type owner, surely the most sensible thing is to reduce the wage levels to a sensible level, freeing up money and adding it to the supposed £20m ~Ashley was affording, as opposed to relying on the £20m Ashley was supposedley affording us and adding to that wage bill.

 

Financially spekaing, Spurs are really doing the business.

 

They have a low wage bill, yet they arent compromising the quality of the squad, they're also investing in players who dont lose there value too much, we're in a position where our wage bill is crippling our potential to spend becasue no matter how mch we're spending we're always adding to an already inflated wage bill which further spas resources.

 

Throwing money at the problem wont solve a thing becasue our starting point is so precarious. A great man once said, ambition first then balance the books later, well when is later?

 

The only high earners left at the club from before Ashley was the major shareholder are Given, Martins, Owen, Duff & Butt. Say that's a total of £350k/w or about £18m/year. That's the same as the increase in TV revenue we received in 07-08 (£18m). If we still have an overly large wage bill now, it's of Ashley's making. People can't keep blaming the old board forever.

 

I'd be surprised if Spurs haven't caught us up in wages tbh, although if their wages are structured more around win bonuses than basic pay they may be in for a cheap year.

 

True, but the high earners that he signed himself was under ther recommendation of SA, i.e pre structure, maybe the structure was implemented becasue of this.(I remeber Mort coming out a stating how much we'd added to our wage bill which was a strange move - this to me highlighted their warieness on the wage bill).

 

There are are 2 ways to lower the wage ratio and that is by incresing revenue (europe and CL qualification) or by lowering the wage bill. The only way to achievie the former (CL qualification) would be to gamble and invest heavily, like the old board did (to their credit -wrong manager though) and it failed, something i belive we're paying the price for now. As investing heavily is a massive gamble which would possilby put the club under futrther strain should we fail to achieve, the only other sensible option would be to lower the wage bill which is what he appears to be doing, he's also tried to implement a system whereby we can attract manily foriegn talent of good quality but lower wages. We havent compromised on quality (yet) but we are lowering the wages.

 

Villa and Spurs, have both started from financially sound positions where there wage bill hasnt strangled them so they can invest heavily in young talent or foreign talent with cheaper wages, therefore they can progress as normal.

 

You may be close to being right about Spurs possilby having a wage bill similar to our, but id hazard a guess and say that the 2 season they sepnt on the brink incresed there revenue alot to be able to cover it somewhat and also they have a larger squad which matches there wage bill, something we cant boast about.

 

[UV]

(I remeber Mort coming out a stating how much we'd added to our wage bill which was a strange move - this to me highlighted their warieness on the wage bill).

 

I don't remember this tbh, I'd be interested to see it if you can find it somehow. (not sarcastic)

 

There are are 2 ways to lower the wage ratio and that is by incresing revenue (europe and CL qualification) or by lowering the wage bill. The only way to achievie the former (CL qualification) would be to gamble and invest heavily, like the old board did (to their credit -wrong manager though) and it failed,

 

Well it only failed 1 year in 2 on average. Could do better obviously, but not too bad. Certainly better than what we have now with what you are claiming is still too large a wage bill.

 

something i belive we're paying the price for now.

 

Well I repeat, there are only 5 major "liabilities" attributable to the old board, and their wages are covered by new additional revenue available to Ashley. If we are paying the price for any decisions in the past, they are all under Ashley's ownership.

 

As investing heavily is a massive gamble which would possilby put the club under futrther strain should we fail to achieve, the only other sensible option would be to lower the wage bill which is what he appears to be doing, he's also tried to implement a system whereby we can attract manily foriegn talent of good quality but lower wages. We havent compromised on quality (yet) but we are lowering the wages.

 

Are we really lowering the wage bill though? We don't know what any player is on really, but we can guess.

 

Out:

Ramage (20)

Diatta/Rozehnal (30)

Carr (40)

Emre (55)

Feye (30)

Milner (20)

 

Total = 195k/w

 

In:

Bassong (20)

Gutierrez (50+)

Guthrie (20)

Coloccini (50+)

Xisco (25)

Gonzo (25)

 

Total = 190+k/w

 

You may argue about Gutierrez and Coloccini, but Gutierrez was on a free after breaking his contract and so would demand a higher than normal wage, and Coloccini's agent mentioned several times that he didn't want his client to miss out on the wages of a lifetime while threatening that he would leave the following year for free (these are the signs of a "good attitude" demanded by the new transfer policy I believe). I don't think I'll be far wrong.

 

Villa and Spurs, have both started from financially sound positions been happy to stay mid table for years where there wage bill hasnt strangled them allowed them to keep or purchase quality players so they can until they decided to invest heavily in quality young talent or foreign talent with cheaper wages, therefore they can progress as normal very quickly compete at or near the top.

 

Fixed.

 

Actually it hasn't worked out too well for Spurs yet, but that can mainly be put down to some stupid structure they had where they bought players the manager didn't want, and then blamed him when they couldn't perform together.

 

 

You may be close to being right about Spurs possilby having a wage bill similar to our, but id hazard a guess and say that the 2 season they sepnt on the brink incresed there revenue alot to be able to cover it somewhat and also they have a larger squad which matches there wage bill, something we cant boast about.

 

I know it seems like a lifetime ago, but we were in Europe the year before Ashley took over.

[NE5]

So basically the man makes a statement about taking the club forward and then proceeds to piss off and sell the only half-decent players we have remaining and we're supposed to keep quiet, bend over and take it because we're afraid of what the alternatives are.

 

 

And waving idiotic "cockney mafia" banners like a bunch of mongs will solve everything, of course.

 

 

like myself, NJS is engaging in good debate and asking searching questions, but as usual you clip the posts and think of a daft comedy one liner to the section you clip.

 

You really are clueless, and serve absolutely no purpose on here at all.

 

 

[NE5]

 

 

When I say "compete with the big boys", you do understand that we are the 3rd biggest supported club in the country, with a unique one city one club fanbase, and really ought to be competing higher than these smaller clubs ie like we did between 1992 and 2007?

 

 

 

aye I admit that is the only time I've bothered to take an interest in the club, and I think that attracting a manager who had won 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards shows how attractive the club was within the game at that time.

 

At last.

 

 

[NE5]

So basically what you're after is someone who's less reckless with their money than Mike Ashley is?

 

How does that square with wanting to compete with the big boys?

Someone who undertook due diligence would be a good start, and personally I’d quite like them to wear a suit and sit in the directors box as well. All that “Look at me down this pint, I’m one of the lads me like” stuff made was a sure sign Ashley would be trouble.

 

spot on.

 

It was clearly bullshit from the start, and quite amazingly lots of people lapped it up.

 

[Guest toonlass]

So basically what you're after is someone who's less reckless with their money than Mike Ashley is?

 

How does that square with wanting to compete with the big boys?

Someone who undertook due diligence would be a good start, and personally I’d quite like them to wear a suit and sit in the directors box as well. All that “Look at me down this pint, I’m one of the lads me like” stuff made was a sure sign Ashley would be trouble.

 

spot on.

 

It was clearly bullshit from the start, and quite amazingly lots of people lapped it up.

 

 

And a lot of people didn't lap it up NE5 and wondered what the agenda of a man from Buckinghamshire suddenly turning up and buying drinks for everyone in Blu Bambu was all about. Just because we don't go running around a web site saying "I told you so" doesn't mean we haven't been sceptical from the start.